M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel who represent the main contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits in these two review petitions. Normally, we would not have entertained the petitions in question but it was pointed out that the authorities seem to have misunderstood the scope of the order passed by the High Court and secondly, that certain consequential orders have been passed which are creating operational difficulties in the area. A perusal of the notice issued indicates that the Deputy Commissioner was under the impression that the earlier orders are set aside and the case is remanded for a fresh decision. It is necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to peruse the judgment of this Court which will make it self-evident that the earlier orders had not been interfered with by the Court but that a limited enquiry was directed which is in the nature of a fact-finding enquiry for the purposes of deciding as to when exactly the alluvial land was formed as a result of the river changing its course. That is the limited scope of the enquiry which the Deputy Commissioner shall take note of and shall observe. Secondly, it should not take much time for these factual aspects to be ascertained and for a finding to be recorded. The original judgment indicates very clearly as to why the High Court had directed this enquiry and the consequences thereof. ( 2 ) THERE is an allegation and a counter-allegation with regard to the removal of the trees on the land in question. Mr. Hebballi submitted that while carrying out agricultural activities if some plants and weeds are required to be removed or if some area is required to be cleared for agricultural activities that the authorities have no right to prevent this. Learned Counsel is right to this extent but we do find from the pleadings that the holder's did in fact attempt to sell the standing trees and have the same removed and this was what was objected to. Learned Counsel is right to this extent but we do find from the pleadings that the holder's did in fact attempt to sell the standing trees and have the same removed and this was what was objected to. Since the enquiry is not complete and since the proceedings are still going on, it is very necessary that as far as changes of complexion of the land in question are concerned, that the holders should not resort to any acts such as removal of the trees, changing the nature of the user or induction of any third parties or creation of third party rights. This restriction will have to be observed until the proceedings are complete. At the same time it is clarified that the holders being agriculturists shall have unobstructed right to not only enter the land which they are entitled to but to also carry out their agricultural activities without any hindrance from any other parties. The authorities will take note of this fact. ( 3 ) THE further grievance that was projected was that if the enquiry were to proceed, that it would give scope to the respondents to further litigate. Our attention was drawn to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in D. M. Nanjappa (dead) by L. Rs v S. A. Ramappa and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has only reiterated the ambit and scope of section 92 of the Land Revenue Act. We had left the issue open but, since the scope of Section 92 has been vehemently agitated before us, we need to record certain restricted clarifications which are as follows: ( 4 ) THE submission can vassed was that Section 92 envisages the grant of land to the adjoining holder and this is the primary duty of the authorities insofar as the section very clearly postulates that it is for the better enjoyment of the adjacent holder. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the ambit and scope of Section 92 insofar as only if the land has been offered to the adjacent owner and that person has refused it then the authorities can dispose it off to other persons. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the ambit and scope of Section 92 insofar as only if the land has been offered to the adjacent owner and that person has refused it then the authorities can dispose it off to other persons. What has happened in this case is entirely different because one of the contentions that was raised when the appeals were originally argued was that prior to 1993 the respondents were the owners and the contention was that the alluvial land was in existence at that time and that consequently, the same ought to have been offered to the previous owners. All this will depend on the result of the enquiry because at this stage we are not in a position to record any definite findings with regard to the factual position concerning when the alluvial land was formed and whether it was in existence prior to 1993. Since the issue was vehemently argued with regard to the scope of Section 92, we need to clarify that the complexion of the case could get considerably altered insofar as if the alluvial lands were in existence prior to 1993 and prior to the allocation there is a possibility that the respondents could agitate the point that within the scope of Section 92 the offer ought to have been made to them. Beyond this clarification, we state nothing more at this stage. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Advocate submitted that it may be that the authorities have slightly misconstrued the High Court orders and that consequently, it would be desirable if this Court were to amplify or clarify the scope of the enquiry. ( 6 ) REGARDING the last point canvassed by Mr. Hebballi which is obviously letting the cat out of the bag insofar as it is very clear that these review petitions were filed for the purpose of modifying the earlier order. In our considered view, that is totally outside the scope of the powers of review. It is a final order passed by the Division Bench and if the respondents are aggrieved by the decision of this Court it is certainly open to them to carry the case higher. It can never be argued in a review petition that the final order should be altered. It is a final order passed by the Division Bench and if the respondents are aggrieved by the decision of this Court it is certainly open to them to carry the case higher. It can never be argued in a review petition that the final order should be altered. In the facts and circumstances of the case we maintain that the direction to hold the enquiry was thoroughly justified and we confirm that position. With these observations, the two review petitions to stand disposed off on merits. No order as to costs. Copy of this order to be furnished to the learned advocates forthwith. --- *** --- .