JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.M.P.No.12 of 2022, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.M.P.No.351 of 2020, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No.1 in both the petitions and Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, learned AC to S.C.(L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in both the cases. 2. In both the cases, a common question of fact and prayer are made that that is why both the C.M.P petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties. 3. In these petitions, it has been prayed for recall the order dated 16.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.5098/2014 by this Court in Misc. Case No.03/2003-04/TR No.38/2006-07 whereby the impugned order 20.12.2006 was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. A further prayer is made to dismiss the W.P.(C) No.5098/2014 and the further prayer is also made for quashing all the subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities which was passed after the order of the writ Court. 4. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.M.P.No.12 of 2022 submits that in the writ petition the petitioner-Vasundhara Homes Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner nos.2 to 4, who are the Directors, who are the purchasers of the land in question were not made parties and in absence of these petitioners, the writ was decided by this Court. He submits that the land in question was purchased by these petitioners in the year 2007 and third party right has been created and in absence of these petitioners, the writ petition was disposed of which seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner. He further submits that Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo sold the land in question to Khan Bahadur Moulbi Habibur Rahman by registered sale-deed No.855 dated 19.04.1934 which is entered in Book No.I, Volume No.15 at pages 51 to 85. Khan Bahadur Moulbi Habibur Rahman applied for mutation of his name in the sherista of the Superior Landlord, which application was registered as Case No.12 of 1934-35 under section 89 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Khan Bahadur Moulbi Habibur Rahman applied for mutation of his name in the sherista of the Superior Landlord, which application was registered as Case No.12 of 1934-35 under section 89 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The then Settlement Officer allowed the application for mutation and caused necessary endorsement in Khewat 2 of Village-Hatma made to the effect that ‘in Cloumn 2 of Khewat no.2, the name of Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman, son of Sheikh Nazir Ali be substituted in place of Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo’. Khan Bahadur Habibur Rahman by Hukumnama dated 5.2.1935, settled the properties in favour of his son Fidaur Rahman. He submits that in the meantime, promulgation of Land Reforms Act, 1950 came and Fadaur Rahman son of Khan Bahadue Habibur Rahman was allowed to retain amongst others, the said 2.82 acres of ‘Bet Kheta’ land in Khata No.1, Khewat No.2, at Village Hatma, Karamtoli, as Raiyat. The rent fixation case was filed for the land aforesaid in the name of Fadaur Rahman, son of Khan Bahadur Rahman was mutated, the said Fidaur Rahman by way of Oral gift dated 21.06.2004 transferred the land to his son Irfanur Rahman and mutation was made in favour of Irfanur Rahman. However, one Lal Vijay Nath Shahdeo claiming himself to be grandson of Thakur Mahendra Nath Shahdeo filed an application before the Circle Officer, Sadar for correction of Jamabandi of land in question of Village Hatma, Khata No.1, Plot No.634, 635, 636, 639 and 810, total area 2.82 acres and the said application was sent by the Circle Officer, Sadar to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi which was registered as Misc. Case No.03/2003-04/T.R. 38/06-07, and irfanur Rahman intervened by filing Vakalatnama in that proceeding and after a detailed enquiry the Deputy Collector Land Reforms rejected the claim and directed the Circle Officer, Sadar to open Jamabandi in the name of Irfanur Rahman. He further submits that the title suit was also instituted by one lady namely Surji Devi in which the writ-petitioner intervened and filed a petition for intervening. In which he has disclosed that he was aware of the proceeding before the Circle Officer, paragraph no.5 and 7 of intervening petition. On these grounds, Mr. He further submits that the title suit was also instituted by one lady namely Surji Devi in which the writ-petitioner intervened and filed a petition for intervening. In which he has disclosed that he was aware of the proceeding before the Circle Officer, paragraph no.5 and 7 of intervening petition. On these grounds, Mr. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that both the writ petitioners were knowing about the pending proceeding before the Circle Officer and third party right creation as the land in question was purchased by this petitioner in the year 2007 and by way of suppressing these facts as not making these petitioners respondents herein in the writ petition filed ............ The learned writ Court disposed of the writ petition by way of allowing the prayer in absence of these petitioners. He submits that pursuant to the order of the writ Court, the revenue authorities have passed the orders against these petitioners which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. Mr. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that if it is brought to the knowledge of the Court that in absence of the necessary party the order has been passed, the Court is competent to recall the order and pass appropriate order. On this point, he relied in the case of Shivdeo Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 . Paragraph no.7 and 8 of the said judgment is quoted below: Para 7 and 8 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5. He further elaborated his argument by way of submitting that the Court is required to look into as to whether the party having prejudiced and the Court may consider the review on the ground of ............... review and a review on merits that the error pointed out to the Court and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd., v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors., 1980 (Supp) SCC 420. Paragraph no.34 of the said judgment is quoted below: Para 34 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. On these grounds, Mr. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order of the writ Court may kindly be recalled and the writ petition be restored to its original position and after hearing both the sides the writ petition may be decided. 7. Mr. On these grounds, Mr. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order of the writ Court may kindly be recalled and the writ petition be restored to its original position and after hearing both the sides the writ petition may be decided. 7. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.M.P.No.351 of 2020 submits that although the petitioners were made party in the writ petition but they have not appeared and substituted notice was published in Hindi Daily Newspaper and no notice was served and they have not been able to appear in the Court. He submits that these petitioners have sold the land in question in the year 2007. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner of C.M.P.No.351 of 2020 may kindly be allowed to .................. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sarkhel, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.Noa.2 in both the cases, submits that there is no apparent error on the face of record and the writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition and there is no illegality. He further submits that principle of natural justice cannot be allowed in a straight jacket formula. According to him, in remitting the matter to the concerned court, no fruitful purpose will be served and it will be a futile exercise as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Escorts .................. v. Commissioner, Kumaun Division’, ................... and ‘Nandlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others’, (2004) 4 SCC 281 . Paragraph no.64 of the said judgment is quoted below: Para No.64 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9. Relying on these judgments, he further submits that it has also been considered in the judgment of this Court in case of Vivek Sahu and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., MANU/JH/0428/2022. He submits that once there an order has been passed by way of writ of certiorari and that there is no illegality, it will be a futile exercise of recalling the order. He submits that the scope of review is very limited and only when apparent error is on the record then only the Court can review its own order and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715 . Paragraph nos. He submits that the scope of review is very limited and only when apparent error is on the record then only the Court can review its own order and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715 . Paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: Para 8 and 9 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. On the same line, he also relied in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, (1979) 4 SCC 389 . Paragraph no.4 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: Para 4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11. Relying on this judgment and by way of referring the impugned order of the writ Court, he submits that there is no illegality as the order was passed considering that the DCLR was not having jurisdiction and submits that by way of recalling the order no fruitful purpose will be served. On the point of recalling of the order, he also relied in the case of (2012) 7 SCC 200 , Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi and others. Paragraph no.26 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: Para 26 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx