( 2025:JHHC:13345 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 24 of 2025 1. Ritu Jaiswal, aged about 25 years, D/o Late Anil Choudhary, Kundu Bangla Road, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353. [Petitioner no.1 , Indu Devi, aged about 54 years, wife of Late Anil Choudhary, r/o House No. 90, Ward No. 10, Kundu Bangla Road, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353- Deleted vide order dated 23.03.2022] 2. Naresh Mandal aged about 44 years son of Bakil Mandal resident of Nawadih, Madhupur, P.O & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353. 3. Nakul Sharma aged, about 44 years, son of Gopi Rana resident of House No. 17, Ward No. 22 Shekhpura, Madhupur, P.O & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353 4. Rajiv Sah @ Rajiv Kumar aged about 44 years son of Jai Ram Shah, r/o- Ward No. 9, S.C Mukherjee Road, P.O & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353. 5. Sanjay Dalmia, aged about 51 years, son of Late Sri Prabhu Dayal Dalmia resident of House No. 33, Ward No. 10, S.C Mukherjee Road, P.O & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353 … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P. S Dhruva, Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. P.O & P. S Deoghar, Deoghar 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur, P.O & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353. 5. Executive Officer, Madhupur Nagar Parishad, Madhupur, P.O & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353. Bhola Prasad Sah, aged about 71 years, son of Late Rambabu Sah resident of Hatia Road, Ward no. 8, Holding Number 61 (Old, Madhupur, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, PIN 815353 (Deleted vide order dated 23.03.2022) 6 Namita Kumari, D/o Late Bhola Prasad Sah 7. Amit Kumar Sah, S/o Late Bhola Prasad Sah 8. Vineet Kumar Sah, S/o Late Bhola Prasad Sah All are resident of Kumud Villa, BB Sarkar Road, Williams Town, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, PIN 814112 … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate (2) For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ( 2025:JHHC:13345 ) 2 For the State : Ms. Priti Priyamvada (AC to GP V) For the Intervener : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Advocate --- 09/02.05.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Review petition has been filed with respect to the order dated 14.11.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3550 of 2020 primarily on the ground that certain security money was also paid by the writ petitioners which does not find mention in the final order passed in the writ petition. The learned counsel has also submitted that one notice has been received by the petitioners issued by the intervener claiming title over the property. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 representing Madhupur Nagar Parishad has submitted that the writ petition did not reveal deposit of any security money and if the petitioners have any money claim against respondent no. 6(a) to 6(c) of the writ petition , who are respondent nos. 6,7, and 8 in the review petition, then the petitioners may take appropriate steps as may be permissible under law, but the same cannot be a ground for review. He has also submitted that so far as receipt of any notice by the writ petitioners from any third party is concerned, the same also cannot be a ground for review of the order. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 4 of the writ order to submit that the writ order itself was passed after the counsel of the petitioners, who were appearing in the writ proceedings, sought instructions from the petitioners and the present review petition has been filed by a different counsel. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the point for review as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this court is of the view that no ground for review of the order dated 14.11.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 3550 of 2020 has been made out. No error from the writ record has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners so as to make out a case for review. The subsequent development which might have taken place at the instance of third party by itself cannot be a ground for review. Moreover, if the petitioners have any money claim against the private respondents of the writ petition i.e. 6(a) to 6(b) who are respondent ( 2025:JHHC:13345 ) 3 nos. 6,7 and 8 in the present proceedings, it is for the petitioners to take appropriate steps in that regard. The matters which were not placed on record in the writ petition and which were not the subject matter of the writ petition cannot be made a ground to review of the order passed in the writ petition. 4. There being no merits, this review petition is dismissed. 5. Since the review petition is being dismissed, there is no need for the intervener. Accordingly, petition seeking intervention, i.e. I.A. No. 5902 of 2025, is also closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit