IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.90 of 2010 1.BADRI RAI 2.Jhapsi Rai 3.Baiju Rai All sons of Late Dularchand Rai. 4.Sarjug Rai 5.Guari Shankar Rai Both sons of Late Sona Rai 6.Mahendra Kumar Son of Late Sheo Prasad Rai 7.Satyendra Kumar Sons of Late Shankar Rai. 8.Madan Rai 9.Sadan Rai Both sons of Late Jaggu Rai @ Jakkuu Rai, All residents of Mohalla-Chakaram, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, District-Patna. …………………..Petitioners. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Collector, Patna, District of Patna. 3.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, District Patna. 4.The Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna District-Patna, Bihar. ………..Oppsite partys/Opposite Parties 1st set. 5.Gyanwati Devi, wife of Anil Kumar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla-Chakaram, P.S. Budha Colony, District Patna. ………….Petitioner/Opposite party 2nd set. with C. REV. No.109 of 2010 1.BADRI RAI 2.Jhapsi Rai. 3.Baiju Rai. All sons of Late Dularchand Rai 4.Sarjug Rai 5.Guari Shankar Rai Both sons of Late Sona Rai 6.Mahendra Kumar Son of Late Sheo Prasad Rai 7.Satyendra Kumar, Son of Late Shankar Rai 8.Madan Rai. 9.Sadan Rai. Both sons of Late Jaggu Rai @ Jakkuu Rai, All residents of Mohall-Chakaram, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, District-Patna. …..Respondents (Second Party)/Petitioners. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Collector, Patna, District of Patna. 3.The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, District Patna. 2 4.The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, District-Patna. ……..Respondents (First Party)/ Opposite Parties 1st set. 5.Gyanwati Devi, Wife of Anil Kumar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla-Chakaram, P.S. Budha Colony, District-Patna. ……..Petitioner/Opposite party 2nd set. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. K.N. Choubey, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sidresh Prasad, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate. With Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, Advocate. ------------ 5 07.07.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Civil Review No.109 of 2010 arises out of an order dated 11.9.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 12650 of 2008 wherein this Court had merely made an observation that if any representation was made by the writ petitioner Gyanwati Devi for implementation/execution of order dated 13th May, 2002 passed by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna, the concerned authority shall proceed with the implementation/execution of the said order without any delay and take the proceeding to the logical conclusion as early as may be possible. Second Review petition, i.e, C.Rev. No.90 of 2010 arises out of the subsequent order dated 22.3.2010 in a writ petition C.W.J.C. No.4864 of 2010 again filed by Gyanwati Devi wherein this Court had, after recording the admitted facts and also the assurance given by counsel for the State with regard to removal of the encroachment in terms of the aforesaid order of the 3 Circle Officer had expressed its hope and trust that the concerned authority shall take such steps so that people who are not entitled to remain in possession do not remain in possession in an unauthorized manner. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned senior counsel and Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these two review applications would contend that as this Court had not heard the petitioners, the directions given by this Court in the two orders dated 11.9.2008 and 22.3.2010 need to be reviewed. They, however, have not been in a position to show any apparent error on the face of records in any portion of the aforesaid two orders or place any materials which was not within the knowledge of the Court while passing such orders. The scope of review being well circumscribed, this Court would not find any reason to review either of the two orders. Consequently both the review applications being devoid of any merit are fit to be dismissed. At this stage Mr. Choubey would however draw attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioners had earlier moved this Court in a writ application challenging the order of the Circle Officer dated 13.5.2002 but the said writ application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 22.6.2005 in C.W.J.C. No.6986 of 2002, wherein the court having noted the 4 admission on the part of the petitioners that the properties in question is a public property it had refused to grant leave as sought for by the petitioners for filing an appeal against the order of the Circle Officer. The said order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.6.2005 in C.W.J.C. No.6986 of 2002, despite being made subject matter of appeal, L.P.A. No.723 of 2005, was not interfered with and the Division Bench also by its order dated 25.11.2005 had dismissed the L.P.A. by a reasoned order. Mr. Choubey would point out that thereafter the petitioners had filed a Title Suit No.91 of 2006 which is pending at present before the Court of Sub. Judge-IX, Patna but its hearing and/or any order on injunction is not being passed primarily on account of orders passed by this Court dated 11.9.2008 in C.W.J.C. No.12650 of 2008 as also order dated 22.3.2010 in C.W.J.C. No.4864 of 2010 (which are subject matter of these two review petitions) and also on account of non availability of the Court and non cooperation on the part of counsel for the State. As noted above, this Court in the two orders, which are sought to be reviewed, had not expressed its own independent opinion rather had made it clear that the law has to take its own course and if any person, who is not authorized to remain on the land in question, has to be removed as per order of the Circle Officer. If the petitioners, claiming to be authorized to remain on land in question have filed their Title suit, the Civil Court in seisin 5 of the same is always expected to decide the issues and deliver its judgment without being prejudiced by the orders dated 11.9.2008 and 22.3.2010 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12650 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 4864 of 2010 respectively. Subject to the aforementioned observations, these two review petitions are dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) Abhay Kumar