IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.249 of 2003 1. Ram Kishun Chero S/o Late Ram Pyare Chero 2. Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Ram S/o Parmeshwar Chamar Both resident of village Chaukhora, P.O. & P.S. Nauhatta, District Rohtas. 3. Ganesh Chamar @ Ganesh Ram S/o Chandradeo Chamar, Resident of village Chaukhara, P.O. & P.S. Nauhatta, District Rohtas. 4. Prabesh Chamar @ Ram Prabesh Ram S/o Late Heera Chamar 5. Dinesh Chamar @ Dinesh Ram S/o Ram Hari Chamar 6. Kameshwar Chamar @ Kameshwar Ram S/o Late Jawahir Chamar All resident of village Chaukhara, P.O. & PS. Nauhatta, District Rohtas. …………………… …Respondents 2nd Set-Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram, Rohtas 3. The L.R.D.C.Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The Anchladhikari Nauhatta, P.O. & P.S. Nauhatta, District Rohtas ………Respondents 1st Set-Opposite Parties. 5. Mostt. Upneta Kuer W/o Late Haridwar Pandey, resident of village Jigana, P.S.Mohania, District Kaimur (Bhabua), presently residing at village Harana, P.O. & P.S. Nauhatta, District Rohtas…………………… …..Petitioner-Opposite party. For the petitioners : M/s Ravi Shankar Sahay and Randhir Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 07/ 27.07.2009 This petition has been filed for review of order dated 10.12.1998 by which a Bench of this court allowed C.W.J.C. No.8985 of 1998 holding that there was no occasion for the respondents authorities to hear the question involved under section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and directed the respondents authorities to come out with a modified notification under section 15(1) of the Act excluding the land in question from the ceiling 2 proceeding aforesaid in terms of the order of D.C.L.R. dated 03.09.1980 immediately but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record of the said order, nor there is any valid material which was not available earlier to take a different view nor this court finds any genuine reason to review the said order. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )