IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.220 of 1997 1(A) MOSTT. TETARI KUER WIFE OF LATE RAM EKBAL MAHTO 1(B) CHANDRAMA BIND SON OF LATE RAM EKBAL MAHTO BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHADICHAK SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 2. BALESHWAR MAHTO @ BIND SON OF LATE GANESH MAHTO 3. BABHIKHAN MAHTO @ BIND SON OF HARI BHAJAN MAHTO 4. BISHWANATH MAHTO @ BIND SON OF HARI BHAJAN MAHTO 5. BISHUNI MAHTO @ BIND SON OF HARI BHAJAN MAHTO 6. KARMU MAHTO ALIAS BIND 7. JIUAT MAHTO ALIAS BIND BOTH SONS OF LATE PARIKHAN MAHTO 8. DEODUTT MAHTO @ BIND SON OF LATE BUTAN MAHTO 9(A) MOSTT. JEERA KUAR WIFE OF LATE JAMUNA MAHTO ALIAS BIND 9(B) RAM BUCHAN BIND 9(C) MANGROO BIND 9(D) GAJROO BIND 9(E) KISHORI BIND ALL ARE SONS OF LATE JAMUNA MAHTO @ BIND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 10(A) MOSTT. GHUMAN KUAR WIFE OF LATE CHHAPIT MAHTO 10(B) RAKTOO BIND SON OF LATE CHHAPIT MAHTO BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 11(A) PADUM BIND SON OF LATE HARI MAHTO @ BIND, RESIDENT OF VILLATGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 12. RAMAYAN MAHTO @ BIND SON OF LATE PRAHLAD MAHTO 13. HARI NATH MAHTO @ BIND SON OF LATE HORIL MAHTO 14(A) CHULHAN DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE DEO RATAN BIND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 15. SHEO MUNI MAHTO ALIAS BIND 16. RAM JANAM MAHTO ALIAS BIND ALL SONS OF LATE RAM BALAK MAHTO 17. JOGI MAHTO @ BIND SON OF LATE PRASAD MAHTO 18. SHEO NANDAN MAHTO @ BIND SON OF RAM KIRPAL MAHTO 19. RAJA RAM MAHTO @ BIND SON OF LATE HARI BANSH MAHTO 20. RUPAN MAHTO @ BIND - 2 - 21(A) SUKMARO KUAR WIFE OF LATE LALLAN MAHTO @ BIND 21(B) CHANDRAMA PD. 21(C ) MAHARAJ PD. 21(D) SURAJ PRASAD ALL ARE SONS OF LATE LALLAN MAHTO @ BIND, RESIDENT OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 22(A) RANGJEE BIND SON OF LATE SHEO JATAN BIND, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR 23. BALI MAHTO @ RAM BALI BIND SON OF LATE WAKIL MAHTO 24. DEBI DAYAL MAHTO @ BIND SON OF RAM KRIPAL MAHTO 25. BASHUDEO PRASAD BIND SON OF RAMAYAN BIND 26. RAJRUP BIND SON OF HARI NATH BIND 27. HARIRAM BIND SON OF MUKHLAL BIND 28. LALA BIND SON OF BHARIKAN BIND 29. KAMTA BIND SON OF RAJARAM BIND 30(A) MOSTT. LAKHPATO KUAR WIFE OF LATE BIRENDRA BIND 30(B) DOMAN BIND 30(C ) ARJUN BIND 30(D) LALOO BIND ALL ARE SONS OF LATE BIRENDRA BIND, RESIDENT OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. …….RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS. Versus 1(A) NAND KUMAR SAH SON OF LATE DHALIWAL SAH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 2(A) JAI SHANKAR PASWAN 2(B) SHEO SHANKAR PASWAN 2(C ) JAI PRAKASH PASWAN ALL SONS OF LATE BAIJNATH PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 3(A) KAMESHWAR BIND 3(B) GOPAL BIND 3(C ) SUBHASH BIND ALL SONS OF LATE SANT LAL BIND, RESIDENT OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 3(D) BARHO KUER WIDOW OF SANT LAL BIND 3(E) ANOTO KUER WIDOW OF LATE GAJADHAR BIND 3(F) BIR BAHADUR KUMAR 3(G) SHYAM BABU KUMAR 3(H) KAMLESH KUMAR ALL SONS OF LATE GAJADHAR BIND - 3 - RESIDENTS OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. 4. LAKHAN RAM 5. DHARMENDRA RAM 6. DEVANAND RAM ALL SONS OF CHANDRIKA RAM 7. NAND LAL 8. GANG BAHADUR BOTH SONS OF RAM SAHAY 9. LACHHUMAN SON OF LAL MOHAR 10. SURESH RAM 11. RAM PRAVESH RAM BOTH SONS OF LATE PUJAN RAM ALL RESIDENTS OF VILALGE MOHADICHAK, SEMARIA, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR……….PETITIONERS- OPPOSITE PARTIES 12. THE STATE OF BIHAR 13. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 14. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 15. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 16. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KOILWAR ANCHAL, DISTRICT BHOJPUR …RESPONDENTS-OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the petitioners : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate with M/s Ranjan Kr. Dubey, Sangeeta Sharma and Rakesh Chandra, Advocate. For the private respondents : Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, SC-8 with Mr. R.K. Sinha, AC to SC-8 ----------- 20/ 08.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed for review of order dated 28.01.1997 by which a Bench of this court allowed C.W.J.C. No.9032 of 1994 and quashed orders dated 27.12.1993 and 18.04.1994 (Anneuxre-3 and 4 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ara and the Collector, Bhojpur - 4 - settling the lands with the private respondents in Settlement Case No.01 of 1992-93. 3. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, including the aforesaid order, it is quite apparent that the said writ petition was allowed and the settlement orders of the authorities were quashed only on the ground that the lands settled with private respondents of the writ petition were subject matter of Title Suit No.25/45 of 1981/1991 in which the State of Bihar as well as the Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat were defendants and the said suit was decreed on 30.04.1992 in favour of the writ petitioners. Hence, it was assumed in the order sought to be reviewed that such lands in which the decree of a Civil Court had been passed in favour the writ petitioners, no settlement can be made by the State Government in favour of the landless persons. 4. The records of Title Suit No.25/45 of 1981/1991 has been called, a perusal of which shows that the said suit was filed only with respect to new plot nos.366, 369, 370, 581, 583, 373, 374, 378 and 379 appertaining to new khata no.310 of village Mahaddichak under Koilwar police station within the district of Bhojpur as is clear from Schedule-A of the plaint and decree was passed in the said suit with respect to the same very lands which is apparent from Annexure-1 of the review petition also. However, in the judgment passed in the said suit number of plots were not mentioned and only the relief sought by the plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, the claim of plaintiffs being for the aforesaid - 5 - specific plots of new khata no.310, the legal presumption would be that the judgment was also with respect the said suit plots only, which is also affirmed by the decree passed in the suit. 5. On the other hand, Annexure-3 of the writ petition is the order sheet of the settlement case which clearly shows that it was with regard to plot nos.602, 609, 632, 689 and 690 of new khata no.310, whereas in paragraph-4 of the writ petition the writ petitioners had claimed only plot nos.609, 619, 682, 690 and 749 of new khata no.310. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the settlement of land made by the authorities concerned, vide impugned orders dated 27.12.1993 and 18.04.1994 (Annexure-3 and 4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ara and the Collector, Bhojpur were not with respect to the plots involved in Title Suit No25/45 of 1981/1991 and the decree passed therein and thus the said orders cannot be legally quashed on the ground that there was a decree of the Civil Court with respect to the land settled by those orders. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents also claims that the scope of review is very limited and this matter does not come under its purview. He relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 455. In this decision it has been held that a review court is not to act as an appellate court and the power of review can be exercised only when an error is apparent on mere looking at record, without going into any long drawn process of reasoning on points where - 6 - there may conceivably be two opinions. 7. This case law, in fact, supports the case of the petitioner as it has been held that this court has specific jurisdiction to review its orders if it finds any error apparent on the face of the record or comes across any fresh material which showed that the orders sought to be reviewed was completely unjustified. In the instant case, due to non-perusal of the plaint and decree of the suit, an error apparent on the face of the record has been committed in the order sought to be reviewed which is also supported by a bare perusal of records of the suit which has been received in this court after the said order was passed regarding which there cannot conceivably be two opinions. Hence the claim of review petitioners is well within the scope prescribed in law. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this civil review petition is allowed and order dated 28.01.1997 passed by a Bench of this court is reviewed and C.W.J.C. No.9032 of 1994 is dismissed with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ara to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)