- (1.) M. Devaraj, J. This review application has been filed against the order dated 23-12-1996.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicants argued that the opposite-parties were given patta in the year 1974 whereas they moved an application for amaldaramad in the year 1991, they have not produced certified copy of patta, rather they have only produced photo copies and hence this Court should have accepted the recommendation of learned Additional Commissioner and revision should had been allowed but it has been rejected and he finally argued that in the said circumstances this review application should be allowed. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that they were given leases in the year 1974 whereas the application for cancelling has been moved in the year 1992 that is after about 18 years which is highly time barred; he further argued that there is no provision to grant benefit of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act in such cases and hence this review application should be dismissed. I have gone through the file carefully. The said order has been passed by the then member after hearing both the parties. In my view there is absolutely no need to review the said order dated 23-12- 1996. If the applicants have any grievance regarding file they can file a regular suit for declaration of their rights. Accordingly, this review application is hereby dismissed. Let this Court's file be consigned to record room. Review dismissed. .;