IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3231 of 2011 1. RAMJEE SINGH S/O LATE BAIJU PRASAD SINGH 2. AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAMJEE SINGH 3. ARBIND KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAMJEE SINGH ALL R/O VILL. KUMARPUR, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DIST. BHAGALPUR --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, BHAGALPUR 4. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, BHAGALPUR 5. THE DY. COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BHAGALPUR 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KAHALGAON, BHAGALPUR 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SUNHAULA, KAHALGAON, BHAGALPUR 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SHAHKUND, BHAGALPUR 9. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SULTANGANJ, BHAGALPUR. ---RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, A.C.to G.P. 18. ----------- 03 25.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader no. 18 for the respondents. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 20.09.2010, passed by respondent Collector on Misc. L.C. case no. 143 of 1998-99 (Annexure-7). It appears from bare perusal of the order that petitioners had earlier moved the revisional Court against the order of the Collector refusing to grant additional units to the land holders. The matter was considered and remitted back to the said authority for fresh consideration. It further appears that respondent Collector, on a consideration of the matter, took the same view whereagainst the petitioners moved the revisional Court in Rev. case no. 2 of 2008. The revisional Court remitted the matter again to the respondent Collector with certain 2 conditions contemplated therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made diverse submissions in order to demonstrate that the order is contrary to the materials on record and not in accordance with the observation/direction issued by the revisional Court/authority. This time the petitioners have approached this Court directly. Considering the fact that at least on two occasions the revisional Court had considered the revisions preferred by the petitioners, and taking into account the submissions, this Court is of the view that instead of approaching this Court by filing writ petition, the petitioners ought to have approached the revisional Court. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the revisional Court against the impugned order. If any such revision application is filed within 03 weeks from today, the said application shall be considered on merit and disposed of in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioners to seek any interim relief from the revisional Court. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)