The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive evidence provided by the survey map and unequivocal statements by the District Magistrate, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the civil review petition. The judgment also highlights the importance of ethical conduct for lawyers appearing before the court.

1. These two petitions are quite unfortuate and taken as a measure of the level to which the proceedings before this Court has gone down, they leave this Court indignant, disturbed and sorrowful. In both the civil review petition and the writ petition the common prayer was for the review of the judgment and order dated 27-6-2000* passed in CWJC No. 6694 of 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the main case). The only difference was that while the civil review petition was filed on behalf of the party which was respondent No. 4 in the main case, the writ petition was filed by certain persons who were neither parties to the main case nor could they be said to have any concern with the issue (s) arising in the main case. The writ petition was clearly intended to be a prop for the civil review petition; it was filed quite irresponsibly and without giving any thought regarding its maintainability. But in the case of the writ petition better sense prevailed at an early stage and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in that case, realised the mistake in filing the writ petition without losing much time. Within moments of the commencement of the submissions on the writ petition (on 22-8-2000) learned counsel sat down stating that he wished to withdraw the petition and on the next date (25-8-2000) he filed a brief and simple petition seeking unqualified permission from the Court for withdrawal of the writ petition for withdrawal lies on the record of this case.

2. Unfortunately, that was not the case in the civil review petition which was sought to be pressed with vigour, paying no heed to the repeated words of caution and warnings by the Court, not only in observations made in course of hearing of the case but also formally recorded in the order, dated 25-8-2000. However, at the fag end of the hearing when the submission of all concerned in this matter had concluded, counsel representing the petitioner in the civil review petition got up in a rather uncertain manner and made an oral prayer for withdrawal of the review petition. The prayer for withdrawal alas came too late and after all the damage, that was being apprehended by the Court from the beginning, had been caused.

3. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the manner in which this case has proceeded, it will be quite wrong to allow a simple withdrawal of the petitions under consideration and the Court deems it fit and proper to put on record its strong disapproval of the conduct of the petitioners, specially in the civil review petition. The Court also wishes to address itself to some of the allied issues arising from the proceedings in these two petitions. Hence, I proceed to write this order.

4. The order of which review is being sought gave directions for removal of a double storied pucca building found to have been constructed at Begusarai on plots of land, forming part of National Highway 31. The order was passed in the main case which was filed as public interest litigation. The petitioner in that case stated that a building was constructed by the Rotary Club, Begusarai (respondent No. 4 in the main case and the petitioner in the civil review petition in hand) on the following plots of land : Khata No. Khasra No. 38 4 87 69 69 21 90 68

It was further stated that the aforesaid four plots formed part of the land acquired for construction of national highway; that on the land acquired for the purpose, national highway was in fact constructed and part of the acquired land was left as flank or for future extension of the highway. It was also stated that the District Magistrate, Begusarai had unauthorisedly allowed Rotary Club to construct the offending building on a portion of land left as flank and for future extension of the national highway.

5. As the facts of the case unfolded it became an admitted position that the Rotary Club, Begusarai had in fact constructed a big, double storied, pucca building on the plots of land as indicated above. The buildin