ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Proceedings have a chequered history. A writ petition was filed in public interest by Radhey Shyam Sharma, Ram Sharan Gurjar, Prem Lata, Reshma, Umrao Lal Yadav, Chandu Ram, Mohan Singh, Munshi Singh and Kanhaiya Lal Daga. They alleged that Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Bansur; Leela Ram Arya had constructed 47 shops illegally on Government land and had rented them out. The State and its authorities did not dispute said fact and thus the writ petition was disposed of on 24.02.2004 directing that unauthorized shops shall be demolished in accordance with law. The order was passed in the absence of the allottees of the shops being impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. Suffice it to highlight herein now that the direction was to proceed in accordance with law. 3. Some of the allottees filed an application labelling it as a review petition and pointed out to the Court that the order, though declaratory in nature, was passed in their absence. The said application registered as D.B. Civil Review Petition No.0740/2004 was disposed of on 07.05.2004 requiring the applicants to approach the District Collector to show that the construction was not unauthorized. Certain persons who were likely to be affected by the order dated 24.02.2004 preferred Petition seeking Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court and leave to appeal being granted, Civil Appeal No.540/2009 came to be registered, which was disposed of on 12.07.2017 recording that the appellants would have an opportunity to show to the appropriate authority that they were neither encroachers nor constructions were illegal. 4. Thereafter, demolition orders came to be passed and the aggrieved persons filed Civil Writ Petition No.22890/2017 which was withdrawn before the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.12.2017. The said order notes the facts which we have noted hereinabove and a finding was recorded as under:- “I am of the considered view that as long as the order dated 24.02.2004 passed in the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma & Others (supra) stands as it apparently does not having been set aside by the Apex Court but in fact affirmed there can be no interference by this Court vis-a-vis the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bansur holding the petitioners to be encroachers with unauthorized construction of shops. Besides, the dispute in the petition arising from the D.B. order of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Sharma & Others (supra) it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to entertain this petition while sitting as a S.B. The impugned order dated 16.11.2017 being in effect a consequence of the DB’s order on Radhey Shyam Sharma & Others (supra), it would be appropriate for the petitioners to take their remedy there against before the D.B.” 5. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge noted that the Counsel was withdrawing the writ petition to move an appropriate review petition before the Division Bench concerning the order dated 24.02.2004. The said second review petition was disposed of by this Bench on 18.12.2017 recording that since the writ petitioners i.e. the applicants before the Division Bench were not earlier on parties before the Division Bench and because the Division Bench had observed that removal of the encroachments would be in consonance with law, the writ petition was maintainable. 6. Under the circumstances, Civil Writ Petition No.22890/2017 was restored. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the order dated 24.02.2004, review whereof was declined on 07.05.2004 merged with the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.540/2009 and thus a second review application before the Division Bench was not maintainable. 8. It is settled law that label of an application does not matter. It is the contents which matters. In view of the fact that the order dated 24.02.2004 directed action to be taken in accordance with law and the first review petition was disposed of on 07.05.2004 permitting the applicants to approach the District Collector and this became the direction issued by the Supreme Court, the obvious conclusion has to be that if the Collector or the Additional Collector passes any order which was against the occupants of the shops, remedies as per law were available to them. 9. Thus, it is not a case where this Bench reviewed the order which had merged in an order passed by the Supreme Court. Once the writ petitioners sought a relief from this Court without impleading the parties likely to be affected and got a declaratory decision, rights of the third parties cannot be curtailed. 9. Thus, it is not a case where this Bench reviewed the order which had merged in an order passed by the Supreme Court. Once the writ petitioners sought a relief from this Court without impleading the parties likely to be affected and got a declaratory decision, rights of the third parties cannot be curtailed. If they are aggrieved by any administrative order passed, they would be entitled to avail judicial remedies as was observed in the order dated 18.12.2017. 10. The application is accordingly dismissed.