JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. 2. This review petition is filed against the order dated 09.12.2015, passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 3290 of 2014, by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. P.P. Bhatt, J. The then Hon'ble the Chief Justice has since superannuated and the other Hon'ble Judge was transferred from this Court and he has also since superannuated. 3. As the review petitioner was not a party before the Writ Court, the office has pointed out this fact as a defect, raising the question about the locus of the review petitioner to file this review petition. An interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 3206 of 2016, has been filed by the review petitioner for ignoring this defect. 4. This Court had taken note of the fact that the issue involved in the writ application was about the proper and fair distribution of the Bhoodan land in the State of Jharkhand, as the impugned order under review showed that the President of Sarva Seva Sangh (Akhil Bharat Sarbvodaya Mandal) had issued Memo No. 30/2014-15 dated 06.05.2014, and Memo No. 33/2014-15 dated 07.05.2014, wherein it was categorically stated that in India, 47,63,676 acres land had been donated to Sarva Seva Sangh, out of which, Bhoodan land measuring area of 14,69,280 acres, fell within the State of Jharkhand. 5. The Court deciding W.P.(PIL) No.3290 of 2014, had taken note of the fact that the Committee constituted by the State Government in the year 2002, under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') had indulged in various illegalities in distribution of the Bhoodan land, in as much as, the land was allotted even in favour of the brother of the then Chairman of the Committee, who was subsequently removed by the State Government. The Committee also got dissolved by efflux of time. The Writ Court, on being dissatisfied with the manner in handling of the Bhoodan land in the State of Jharkhand, had given various directions for constitution of the Committee under the Act, operative portion whereof may be quoted herein below:- “18. The Committee also got dissolved by efflux of time. The Writ Court, on being dissatisfied with the manner in handling of the Bhoodan land in the State of Jharkhand, had given various directions for constitution of the Committee under the Act, operative portion whereof may be quoted herein below:- “18. The preamble of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 underscores that the legal services authorities are concerned with the weaker sections of the society and imposes a duty on them to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. To achieve the aforesaid purposes, the National Legal Service Authority established under the Legal Services Authorities Act has issued direction to the respective State Legal Services Authority to play an important role for effective implementation of welfare Scheme, where the beneficiaries are deprived of getting the benefit under the Scheme. Accordingly in the State of Jharkhand Legal Services Authority is actively playing its role in helping poor and needy persons to avail the benefit under the various schemes framed by the State under the aegis of National Legal Services Authority. 19. The allotment of land under Bhoodan Act is also one of the beneficial Schemes of the Government and as such we are of the view that the Legal Services Authority of the State of Jharkhand can play an important role in fair distribution of Bhoodan land. 20. We, therefore, direct the State Authority to constitute a Committee under the Jharkhand Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 within one month from today consisting of Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts; Principal District Judge of each District, who is ex-officio Chairman of District Legal Services Authority; Secretary, District Legal Services Authority and one of the officers to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner of each District. The Executive Chairman, State Legal Services Authority is requested to pass necessary orders, designating the Chairman District Legal Services Authority to play a role of Ombudsman and help the poor landless persons in getting the land under the Bhoodan Act. The constituted Committee shall work out further modalities for the purpose of effective implementation of the Welfare Scheme of allotment of land to the landless persons under the Bhoodan Act.” 6. The constituted Committee shall work out further modalities for the purpose of effective implementation of the Welfare Scheme of allotment of land to the landless persons under the Bhoodan Act.” 6. By order dated 14.02.2018, while this matter was listed before the Division Bench, this Court, taking note of the aforesaid facts, was of the view that Since the Hon'ble Judges passing the order under review, were no more available in this Court, and the legality of the order was also challenged, which the co-ordinate Bench could not look into, the matter was referred to the larger Bench. This is how the matter has been listed before this Full Bench. 7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that this direction for constitution of the Committee, consisting of the members as directed by the Writ Court, is absolutely illegal and against the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which empowers only the State Government for constituting the Committee to administer all lands vested in it under Bhoodan. Again, the said committee is statutorily required to be consisting of a Chairman and such number of Members, which shall not be less than four and more than nine, as may be determined by the State Government. The Writ Court, while giving directions for constitution of the Committee, exceeded its jurisdiction, and in fact, by giving such directions, the Court had imposed upon itself, the executive function of the State, of forming the Committee, which could not been done by the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that since the direction given by the Writ Court is against the provisions of law, it suffers from manifest and palpable error, apparent on the face of record, and accordingly, this is a fit case for review of the order passed by the Writ Court. 8. Pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court, the Committee has been constituted by the State Government, vide notification No. 1031 dated 11.03.2016, issued by the State Government, in its Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, in the lines of the directions given by the Writ Court, which has been brought on record by way of counter affidavit filed by the respondent State on 10.09.2018, pursuant to an order dated 25.07.2018, passed by this Court. By the said notification, giving the reference of the directions passed by the Writ Court, the Committee has been reconstituted by the State Government, nominating the members of the Committee to be as follows :- (a) the Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts, (b) the Principal District Judges of all the Districts, being the ex-officio Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority, (c) the Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities, (d) one Officer nominated by the Deputy Commissioner of each District. It has further been stipulated in the aforesaid notification dated 11.03.2016, that by the order of the Executive Chairman of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority shall be authorized to function as the 'Ombudsman' for looking into the complains, and to help in proper distribution of the Bhoodan land amongst the poor and landless persons. 9. Though learned counsel appearing for the State has taken the stand that this review is not at all maintainable by a person who was not a party before the Writ Court, but we take note of certain decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred in this regard by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, which are as follows:- (A) In Union of India Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 2573, the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows :- "18. Reverting to the question of whether Union of India has locus to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) which, inter alia, postulates that “any person considering himself aggrieved” would have locus to file a review petition. Order 47 CPC restates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions. Notably, neither Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions. Notably, neither Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect." (Emphasis supplied). (B) Again, in Union of India Vs. Namit Sharma, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 359 , the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows :- "21. Review of a judgment or order of this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution is confined to only errors apparent on the face of the record as provided in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has held in CST v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. that if a reasoning in the judgment under review is at variance with the clear and simple language in a statute, the judgment under review suffers from a manifest error of law, an error apparent on the face of the record, and is liable to be rectified. ---------." (Emphasis supplied). (C) In State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Surendra Mohnot & Ors., reported in (2014) (14) SCC 77, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:- "21. While dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court to review its order under Article 226 of the Constitution in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab the Constitution Bench observed that nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution precludes a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it." Thereafter, the various previous decisions have been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent paragraphs, and finally, in paragraph 26, it has been laid down as follows :- "26. In the case at hand, as the factual score has uncurtained, the application for review did not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. It did not require any advertence on merits which is in the province of the appellate court. In the case at hand, as the factual score has uncurtained, the application for review did not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. It did not require any advertence on merits which is in the province of the appellate court. Frankly speaking, it was a manifest and palpable error. A wrong authority which had nothing to do with the lis was cited and that was conceded to. An already existing binding precedent was ignored. At a mere glance it would have been clear to the Writ Court that the decision was rendered on the basis of a wrong authority. The error was self-evident. When such self-evident errors come to the notice of the Court and they are not rectified in exercise of review jurisdiction or jurisdiction of recall which is a facet of plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, a grave miscarriage of justice occurs. In appeal the Division Bench, we assume, did not even think it necessary to look at the judgments and did not apprise itself of the fact that an application for review had already been preferred before the learned Single Judge and faced rejection. As it seems, it has transiently and laconically addressed itself to the principle enshrined in Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a consequence of which the decision rendered by it has carried the weight of legal vulnerability." (Emphasis supplied). 10. Having thus discussed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are satisfied that in case the order passed by the Division Bench suffers from any manifest and palpable error, which is self evident, and is in clear variance with the plain and simple language in a statute, the order needs to be reviewed in the interest of Justice and in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. Also being satisfied on the proposition of law that this review petition filed by the third party is maintainable, we herby allow the review petitioner to prefer and press this review petition, ignoring the defect pointed out by the office. I.A. No. 3206 of 2016, is accordingly, allowed. 11. We would now like to refer to the provisions of the Act. Sections 3 & 4 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, read as follows :- "3. Establishment of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee. I.A. No. 3206 of 2016, is accordingly, allowed. 11. We would now like to refer to the provisions of the Act. Sections 3 & 4 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, read as follows :- "3. Establishment of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee. - (1) There shall be established by the State Government a Committee to be called the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee to administer all lands vested in it for the purposes of the Bhoodan Yagna in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) The Committee shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property; both movable and immovable, and shall by the said name, sue and be sued. (3) The Committee may enter into and perform all such contracts and exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions as it may consider necessary or expedient for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act. 4. Constitution of the Committee and term of office. - (1) The Committee shall consist of a Chairman and such number of members, which shall not be less than four and more than nine, as the State Government may determine. (2) The Chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed by the State Government: (3) The names of the Chairman and members shall be published in the Official Gazette. (4) The term of office of the Chairman and members of the Committee shall be four years from the date of the publication of their names in the Official Gazette and shall include any further period which may elapse between the expiration of the said period of four years and the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the names of the Chairman and members of the next succeeding Committee. (5) The Chairman and members of the Committee shall be eligible for reappointment." 12. Thus, from a bare perusal of these provisions, it is apparent that the function of constitution of the Committee is within the exclusive domain of the State Government, in which, there is no scope of any interference by this Court, imposing upon its fiat to ordain as to who shall be the members of the Committee and who shall be not. It is trite that if the constitution of the Committee itself is per se illegal, the scope of the judicial review shall be there, but in garb of exercising the power of judicial review, the Court cannot take upon itself and decide as to who shall be the members of the committee. 13. We also find that Section 4 of the Act clearly states that the committee shall consist of not less than four and more than nine Members, apart from the Chairman. The size of the Committee is also to be determined by the State Government only, which as aforesaid, is to consist of not less than four and more than nine Members, apart from the Chairman. If we go through the constitution of the Committee, as constituted by notification No. 1031 dated 11.03.2016, we find that the number of the members in the Committee shall be much more than nine, as twenty four officers in all the four ranks of officers, from each twenty four Districts in the State, as detailed in the notification, have been made the Members of the Committee, which is again against the provision of the statute. 14. These apart, the said notification No. 1031 dated 11.03.2016, shows that no one has been nominated as the Chairman of the Committee. All the officials, right from the Deputy Commissioner of the District to an officer nominated by the Deputy Commissioner, have only been nominated as the Members of the said Committee. 15. To cap all, the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority, who is the Principal District Judge of a District, has been nominated to act as an 'Ombudsman', upon being authorised by the Executive Chairman, Jharkhand State Legal Services Committee, for looking into the complains, and to help in proper distribution of the Bhoodan land amongst the poor and landless persons. Since the all the Principal District Judges-cum-Chairman of the District Legal Services Authorities are to act as the Members of the committee, they cannot be nominated to act as the 'Ombudsman', in the same matter, in which they shall be the key persons in the decision making process, against which there may be complains by the poor and landless persons, who may be aggrieved by any decision of the Committee. 16. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the constitution of the Committee is per se against the intent of the Legislature and this Committee cannot be allowed to function, more so, taking into consideration the fact that the Committee is entrusted to take care and also entrusted with the work of distribution of 14,69,280 acres of land in the State of Jharkhand, given in Bhoodan. We find that all these illegalities in the constitution of the Committee, have cropped up solely due to the direction passed by the Writ Court, which suffers from manifest and palpable error, which is self evident, as it is in clear variance with the plain and simple language of the statute, i.e., Sections 3 and 4 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. As such, we are satisfied that this is a case in which the review of the order passed by Writ Court is necessarily required in the interest of Justice, and in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice. 17. We accordingly, in exercise of the power of review, hereby, recall paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of the order dated 09.12.2015, passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 3290 of 2014, and quash the Notification No.1031 dated 11.03.2016, issued by the State Government, in its Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms. 18. The respondent State is directed to come out with the new notification issued under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, positively within the period of one month from today, without being influenced by paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of the order dated 09.12.2015, passed in W.P(P.I.L) No. 3290 of 2014, and to file the supplementary counter affidavit in the matter, bringing the same on record. 19. Put up the matter again on 08th November, 2019, on which date, this Bench shall again be reconstituted at 2:15 P.M. 20. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the State forthwith, for the needful.