IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2925 of 2002 1. Bilas Singh, son of Late Mohan Singh. 2. Sakaldeo Singh, son of Late Chulhan Singh. 3. Ramdeo Singh @ kamdeo Singh, son of Late Chulhan Singh. 4. Jitendra Singh, son of Late Naresh Singh @ Suresh Singh. 5. Munna Singh, son of Late Sakaldeo Singh. 6. Pappu Singh, son of Shri Bilas Singh. All resident of village- Paharpur, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner, Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Addl. Collector, Gaya. 5. The Circle Officer, Chandauti, Gaya. 6. Bitthal Paswan, son of Late Rambriksh Paswan. 7. Chanarik Paswan, son of Late Rambriksh Paswan. 8. Binash Paswan, son of Late Rambriksh Paswan. 9. Popal Paswan, son of Late Rambriksh Paswan. 10. Kopal Paswan, son of Late Rambriksh Paswan. 11. Krishna Paswan, son of Late Dukhan Paswan. 12. Dhanpat Paswan, son of Late Jhapsi Paswan. 13. Babu Lal Paswan, son of Late Dhari Paswan. 14. Lavkush Paswan, son of Late Jagdish Paswan. 15. Mindu Paswan, son of Late Jagdish Paswan. 16. Pintu Paswan, son of Late Jagdish Paswan. 17. Monu Paswan, son of Late Jagdish Paswan. Nos.15 to 17 are under the guardianship of Lavkush Paswan, son of Late Jagdish Paswan. 18. Mahesh Paswan, son of Khelawan Paswan. 19. Munarik Paswan, son of Khelawan Paswan. 20. Vijay Paswan, son of Late Narjit Paswan. 2 21. Kunwar Paswan, son of Late Narjit Paswan. 22. Shiv Paswan, son of Late Dhani Paswan. All resident of village- Paharpur, P.S. Chandauti, District- Gaya. ..... Respondents. 05- 18.12.2008 Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar for the petitioners, Mr. Anwar Karim, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No.5 for respondent nos.1 to 5, and Mr. S.K. Tiwary for respondent nos.6 to 22. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Gaya, in Misc. Case No.24 of 2000 (Rambriksh Dusadh and others Vs. Bilas Singh), whereby he has recalled the order dated 11.12.1992 (Annexure-1), passed by his predecessor in Misc. Case No.63 of 1992-93 (Kashi Manjhi Vs. Raghuni Paswan and others). 3. According to the writ petition, the petitioner purchased C.S. Plot No.405, appertaining to Khata no.40, covering an area of 10 bighas 5 kathas, equivalent to 7.68 acres, for valuable consideration in favour of Brij Rani Devi, wife of Rewati Raman Prasad, by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 6.10.1961. The petitioners continued in peaceful possession of the same and the lands 3 were mutated in their favour. It was directed by the said order dated 11.12.1992 (Annexure-1), that the lands mentioned therein ought to have been settled in favour of Harijans who are not in Government service. The petitioners’ vendor figures at serial no.12. The same was recalled by the impugned order dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-5), and Parchas issued earlier have also been recalled as being illegal and void. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a quasi-judicial authority cannot recall the order passed by his predecessor in exercise of powers of review. In his submission, no such power is available. The limited scope of interference in review jurisdiction is well-established. He next submits that the order dated 11.12.1992 (Annexure-1) had attained finality and could not have been recalled after a lapse of more than eight years. 5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 22 has opposed the writ petition. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. In view of the 4 submission of learned counsel for respondent nos.6 to 22, the original plot seems to have been parceled out and it is not clear as to which portion has come to the petitioners. Secondly, the petitioners have also not produced the alleged sale deed executed by Smt. Brij Raji Devi. Thirdly, in any view of the matter, it relates to contentious question of title to the land in question. In that view of the matter, I am unable to interfere with the impugned order. It goes without saying that it will be open to the aggrieved parties to institute a suit in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. It goes without saying that neither the orders passed by the revenue authority, nor the observations made herein, shall come in the way of the civil court. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/