CIVIL REVIEW No.221 OF 2000 Against the order dated 7.9.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1694 of 1984 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 1. PRITHWICHAND YADAV, 2. TEJ NARAIN YADAV Both sons of late Janak Lal Yadav, Residents of Village – Kachhari Balua, P.S. Sarsi (Banmankhi), District - Purnea ------------ Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. Collector, Purnea. 4. Additional S.D.O. (Ceiling), Purnea, Sadar, Purnea. ------------- Opposite parties For the petitioner : Mr.Kumar Uday Singh For the opposite parties : Mrs. Kumari Amrita(SC)CEILING P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ******* A K Tripathi, J No doubt the review application has been admitted against the order dated 7th September, 1994 passed in C W J C No. 1694 of 1984 but this Court has serious difficulty in allowing the review application keeping in mind the ambit and the power which a Court can exercise while sitting in the jurisdiction of review. It is sincerely urged at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at one point of time when the proceeding of the writ application was going on the petitioners were granted indulgence to file an affidavit and bring additional material to show that the classification of the land done by the ceiling authorities was not based on true facts and actual state of affairs. A kind of report was submitted by the Anchaladhikari which shed some light on the - 2 - issue which was brought on record in the writ proceeding as Annexure- 10 but when the writ application was finally argued, probably by inadvertence emphasis was not placed on this evidence and material and the judgment in the writ application came to be rendered. Petitioners’ counsel submits that this evidence had a vital bearing on the adjudication of the issue because if this evidence had been placed and considered by the writ court then the land of the petitioners would not have been declared surplus. 2. The reason seeking review as noted above would virtually amount to re-hearing the writ application afresh and rendering an opinion on the dispute which came to be settled by a decision against which the present review application has been filed and admitted. Since the order admitting the review application does not indicate anything as to what weighed on the mind of the Judge while admitting the review application, therefore, the Court has to go by the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners in support of the review application. 3. The Court is of the opinion that the ground urged for the review of the impugned order is not sufficient ground because it is neither error apparent on the face of record nor is there any patent illegality in the impugned order. 4. The review application is therefore dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 18th November, 2008. R K Pathak. - 3 -