ORDER D.N. Patel, J. (Oral) - The Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers: - (a) For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent no. 7 to register First Information Report, against the culprits involved in fraudulent transfer of the Tribal Land to non-tribals contrary to the legal provisions enshrined in Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, knowing fully well that, it is not a transferable one, even then the respondent no. 8 has allowed transfer. (b) For the direction upon the respondents to implement the provisions of the C.N.T. Act in the present case, which was reiterated by this Hon''ble Court in Salkhan Murmu''s case. (c) For the direction upon the respondents to submit the status report of the investigation, when it is done by the Vigilance Bureau, and Criminal action taken by the Vigilance Bureau. (d) For the direction upon the respondents the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to enquire and submit the report of the similar fraudulent transfers taken place in the district of Ranchi. 2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that several grievances have been ventilated against the Revenue Officers, who are also deciding the revenue matters, under the Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. 3. it has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents have been brought on the record to the effect that there are serious irregularities/illegalities, committed by the revenue officers while deciding the SAR (Scheduled Area Regulation) cases under the aforesaid Regulation and, hence, it is prayed by this petitioner that some strict actions may be initiated against those revenue officers. 4. The aforesaid facts are rampant whenever any revenue matters are involved. There are powers of review, which can be utilised upon applications, preferred by such dissatisfied souls or by suo-motu. Thus, whenever there is a power of review given to the officers, it can be utilized when there is any patent or ostensible irregularities or illegalities. Such phenomenon regarding usage of the review powers, more particularly under the revenue laws, are not so unknown to the public at large and that does not mean that whenever any review power is exercised and review applications are allowed, the subordinate revenue officers should be dismissed or always departmental actions should be initiated. 5. Moreover, the State can also take in review such orders, in accordance with law. 5. Moreover, the State can also take in review such orders, in accordance with law. If the high ranking administrative officers under the revenue laws think it just, proper and equitable that any offence has been committed, proper action can be taken under the Criminal Laws also. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this Public Interest Litigation is, hereby, disposed of.