111. In the instant case, it is evident, for two reasons, that there was no discrimination at any time. 112. On the one hand, and contrary to their claims, the fact that some people are not affected is logically explained because they are people who are outside TP No. 18 or who have not purchased portions of land in TP No. 18 (the exclusive property of the State of Niger) which was parceled and attributed to the Summerset Company. 113. The disputed land covers an area of one hectare of 14 ares and 36 centiares (1ha 14 to 36 ca), and at no time did the State authorize a third person to consider himself the owner of this land or a portion of it. 114. On the other hand, it results from the applicants' documents that, to succeed with the case, title deeds (proof of customary possession) were issued to them by the traditional authorities of an area (the land at dispute, as a reminder, covers an area of an acre of 14 ares and 36 centiares (1ha 14 to 36 ca) that belongs to the State since 1935. However, since 1935 the State has never, at any time, authorized a third person to consider himself the owner of that land or a portion of it. As a legal consequence, this had the legal annulment of these various title deeds, irregularly established to serve their cause. 115. There was no discrimination in the instant case. 116. The application for Revision should be, purely and simply, dismissed. b) Pleas in Law 21