IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.85 of 2007 1. Ramji Mehta. 2. Laxman Mehta. 3. Uma Shankar Mehta. All sons of late Ram Lakhan Mahto. 4. Rampari Devi, widow of Late Ram Lakhan Mahto. 5. Bhagia Devi, daughter of Late Janak Mahto. 6. Shashi Agrawal @ Sushil Kumar Agrawal. 7. Ashok Agrawal. Both sons of Late Kedar Nath Agrawal. 8. Gita Devi, wife of Late Kedar Nath Agrawal. 9. Ramautar Ram. 10. Gopal Ram. 11. Pursottam Ram. All sons of Late Biraj Lal Ram. 12. Ramesh Agrawal, son of Late Sheo Sahay Ram. 13. Bhuneshwar Mahto, son of Niras Mahto. 14. Shafir Mian @ Md. Shafir, son of Shamashulla Mian. All residents of village- Dhobidha Birauli, P.S. Rupauli, District- Purnea. .....petitioners/petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Minister, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Collector, Bhagalpur. 4. Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Bhagalpur. 5. Anchal Adhikari, Rupauli, Purnea. 6. Jagmohan Kothriwala, son of Late Krishna Lal Kothriwala, resident of Harnath Rai Kishan Lal, 11-Polak Street, Kolkata. 7. Battisi Devi, wife of Late Bhuneshwar Harijan. 8. Ashok Harijan, son of Late Bhuneshwar Harijan. 9. Suresh Harizan, son of Anandi Harizan. 10. Kami Harizan, Son of Hitlal Harizan. 11. Naresh Harizan, Son of Anandi Harizan. 12. Chhattish Harizan, Son of Hitalu Harizan. 13. Upendra Harizan, Son of Briju Harizan. 14. Sheo Harizan, Son of Briju Harizan. 15. Lojiya Harizan, Son of Gobind Harizan. 2 All residents of Village- Birauli, P.O. Aajhokopa, Via- Bhawanipur (Rajdham), P.S. Rupauli, District- Purnea. 16. Ramdas Paswan, Son of Panchu Paswan. 17. Dhanik Rishi. 18. Sukhari Rishi. Both sons of Late Bahru Rishi. 19. Ashin Rishi, son of Chander Rishi. All residents of Village- Aajhokopa, P.S. Rupauli, District- Purnea. 20. Phekani Devi, wife of Bilas Rishi and daughter of Late Dhanraj Rishi, resident of village- Chirauri, P.S. Chausa, District- Madhepura. 21. Gujaye Mochi, Son of Badri Mochi. 22. Sitaram Rishi, son of Bahru Rishi. 23. Jitu Rishi, Son of Nagrru Rishi. 24. Bhagwan Rajak, Son of Lahwar Rajak. 25. Bodh Narayan Muni, Son of Kailu Muni. 26. Bilash Muni, Son of Ishwar Muni. 27. Ramdeo Muni, Son of Jhakho Muni. 28. Domi Paswan, Son of Jhakho Muni. 29. Jay Prakash Ram, son of Dhaneshwar Ram. 30. Chandeshwari Ram, Son of Thakur Ram. 31. Nepali Ram, Son of Dhaneshwar Ram. 32. Juleshwar Muni, Son of Panchlal Muni. 33. Najo Muni, Son of Panchlal Muni. 34. Mishri Muni, Son of Bhadhho Muni. 35. Siro Muni, Son of Gobardhan Muni. 36. Jharo Muni, Son of Baburam Muni. 37. Bijay Muni, Son of Bangali Muni. 38. Satto Rishi, Son of Lilo Rishi. 39. Lakshman Rishi, Son of Dayal Rishi. 40. Anirudh Rishi, Son of Darogi Rishi. 41. Tahani Devi, wife of Late Antu Rishi. 42. Mahendra Rishi, son of late Antu Rishi. 43. Bhulo Rishi, Son of Ashok Rishi. 44. Narsingh Rishi, Son of Kesho Rishi. 45. Bino Rishi, Son of Bishwanath Rishi. 46. Jhapat Muni, Son of Jhingu Muni. 47. Lagru Rishi, Son of Mangal Rishi. All residents of village + P.O.- Aajhokopa, Via- Bhawanipur (Rajdham), P.S. Rupauli, District- Purnea. ....Respondents/ Opp. Parties. ----------- 03- 9.1.2009 Heard Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha for the petitioners. This application has been filed by 3 the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No.4969 of 2004 (Ram Lakhan Mahto and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others), for recall of the order dated 5.5.2004, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Minister for Revenue in purported exercise of powers under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), was upheld. 2. The petitioners claim to be purchasers from the land-holders. After the land ceiling proceedings concluded, the petitioners filed an application under Section 45-B of the Act before the Minister which was rejected on the ground of delay. The writ petition challenging the order of the learned Minister was rejected by the said order dated 5.5.2004, for the reasons assigned therein. The petitioners challenged the same by preferring L.P.A. No.585 of 2004, which was by order dated 2.4.2007 dismissed as withdrawn to enable the petitioners to file a review application, leading to the present application. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is evident on a perusal of the order dated 5.5.2004 that the petitioners attempted to mislead this Court in 4 ways more than one. Such an approach cannot be countenanced in discretionary, prerogative writ jurisdiction. Secondly, this appears to be a mala- fide act on the part of the petitioners, who are purchasers and have stepped into the shoes of the land-holders, after conclusion of the land ceiling proceedings. To reopen the matter, the petitioners had earlier filed writ petition which was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to file application under Section-45-B of the Act within a period of six weeks, which was not done. Furthermore, as has been noted in paragraph 6 of the order, the surplus lands were distributed to respondent nos.6 to 45 in whose favour parcha has been issued and it is not possible to disturb the parallel rights created in their favour. There cannot be a premium on the negligence of the petitioners. Settled affairs cannot be unsettled in the manner canvassed by the petitioners. 4. This civil review application is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/