Order These three review petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.11 .2007 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 503 of 2006 along with LPA No. 504 of 2006 and LPA No. 505 of 2006. 2. All the aforesaid appeals were directed against a common judgment and order passed in three writ petitions which had been heard collectively and had been disposed of by a common order, against which these review petitions have been filed. 3. The petitioners had come up with a case that although the land belonging to them had been acquired by the then State of Bihar in the year 1960, yet the land belonging to them should be ordered to be reconveyed/returned to them as according to the petitioners' case, the Government of Bihar has already taken a policy decision to return the land to the original landowners. 4. It is an admitted position that a large tract of land had been acquired in the year 1960 by the erstwhile State of Bihar for the benefit and use of a Public Sector Undertaking namely M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC in short) and while the Undertaking was set up on the land acquired, the petitioners came up with a case that large area comprising 2555.71 decimals of land were lying unutilised. The petitioners, therefore, filed three writ petitions separately before the learned Single Judge for return of the land to the petitioners, on the ground that the lands were lying unutilised as also on the ground that the Government of Bihar had already taken a policy decision to return or reconvey the unutilised land to its original owners which were initially acquired for the purpose of use by HEC. 5. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Government of A.P. vs. Syed Akbar, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 558 , wherein it has been held that the lands acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. 5. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Government of A.P. vs. Syed Akbar, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 558 , wherein it has been held that the lands acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. In the same judgment, it was further held that the land acquired for the public purpose, could be utilised for any other public purpose and it was still further held that the acquired lands which were vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, cannot be reassigned or reconveyed to the original owners merely on the basis of an executive order. 6. It is on this premise that the writ petitions were filed for return/reconveyance of the land but the same were dismissed. The petitioners thereafter preferred three Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, which also were dismissed by the judgment and order dated 6.11.2007, already indicated hereinbefore. 7. The petitioners thereafter preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court bearing S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 8395-8397 of 2008 vide Annexure-2 to the review petitions and it was contended before the Supreme Court by the petitioners. That although acquisition of the land had taken place, the possession was not taken from them either by the. State or the beneficiary i.e. HEC. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application for recall of the order for considering whether the averment of the petitioners that the acquired land had not been taken from them after acquisition, was 'correct or not and whether compensation were also paid to the land owners. The Petitioners thereafter did not file any application for recall but have filed these three review petitions, wherein it has been asserted that the land which were lying unutilised, should be reconveyed to the petitioners. 8. The review petitions obviously can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be expected to investigate or adjudicate whether the petitioners are still in occupation of the land in question as it would clearly depend on a scrutiny of evidence which cannot be permitted to be adduced by way of a review petition. However, even if it were to be entertained to consider whether the averment of the petitioners to the effect that they are still in possession of the lands which were acquired, it cannot be overlooked that they have already received compensation, which could not have been paid without delivery of possession to the State. Hence the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench vide the impugned judgment and order to the effect that acquisition could not be reconveyed by virtue of an executive order on the plea that a policy decision had been taken, is not erroneous in any manner. The view taken by the learned Division Bench as also the learned Single Bench to the effect obviously implies that if a policy decision, at all has been taken by the Government, the same had to be incorporated in the form of a Government notification and unless a notification to that effect is issued by the State, which is now the State of Jharkhand after the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the claim of the petitioners for reconveying the alleged unutilised land cannot be entertained. 9. Besides this, the averment of the petitioners before the Supreme Court to the effect that the petitioners are still in possession of the land and had not been paid compensation is also factually not sustainable. On the contrary, counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the petitioners had already received compensation and the land had also been taken over by the State Government wherein the HEC for whom the acquisition had been made, is in occupation and possession of the land after its acquisition. Thus, the petitioners apparently did not make a correct statement before the learned Judges of the Supreme Court to the effect that they are still in occupation and possession of the unutilised land, nor it was correct for them to assert that they had not received any compensation, due to which liberty was granted to the petitioners to file an application for recall of the order, which also was not done but in lieu of the same, these review petitions have been filed. 10. These review petitions, therefore, are not fit to be entertained, in absence of any factual or error apparent on the face of the record. 11. 10. These review petitions, therefore, are not fit to be entertained, in absence of any factual or error apparent on the face of the record. 11. Even at the risk of repetition, we may record that the petitioners have miserably failed to support their averments, which they had made before the Supreme Court to the effect that they are in occupation and possession of the unutilised land and they have also not stated before this Court that they have not received compensation for the land which had been acquired. 12. However, counsel for the petitioners still insisted that at least some of the petitioners are in occupation of the land without denying that they have received compensation. In any case, it is not possible for this Court to hold a factual enquiry as to whether some of the landholders who might not even be the petitioners herein, are still in actual physical possession of the acquired land which took place way back in the year 1960 as that would require adducing of evidence which is not available on record and rightly so as the same could not have been permitted under writ jurisdiction, much less while entertaining review petitions. 13. Accordingly, all the review petitions are dismissed.