IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11451 of 2009 JAMIL AKHTAR SON OF MD. MUNIF, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAYANPUR, P.S. MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, KATIHAR, DISTT. KATIHAR. 3. THE D.C.L.R., MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, MANIHARI, DISTT. KATIHAR. 5. SRI SRI 108 RADHA KRISHNA THAKURBARI MANDIR THROUGH SECRETARY KAMATA PRASAD SINGH AT NAWABGANJ, P.S. MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 6. KAMTA PRASAD SINGH(SECRETARY), SON OF LATE JAGAT NR. SINGH, SRI SRI 108 RADHA KRISHNA THAKURBARI AT NAWABGANJ, VILLAGE NAWABGANJ, P.S. MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. 7. SUDHIR MANDAL, SON OF LATE CHEEDI MANDAL 8. KALU MANDAL SON OF LATE CHEEDI MANDAL, SERIAL NO.7 TO 8 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAWABGANJ, P.S. MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR. ----------- 04. 15.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also counsel for private respondent nos.5 and 6. 2. Petitioner had applied for mutation of the lands in question before the Circle Officer, Manihari, Katihar, who rejected his request under order dated 28.2.2004, Annexure-3, whereafter the matter was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Manihari, Katihar, who allowed the appeal under order dated 8.7.2005, Annexure-4. The appellate order was questioned by the private respondents before the Additional Collector, Katihar, who under order dated 26.3.2006, Annexure-5 set aside the appellate order and restored original order dated 28.2.2004 passed by the Circle Officer. Petitioner has questioned the validity of the revisional order passed by the Additional Collector as according to him in terms of the provisions contained in Section-16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings(Maintenace of Receords) Act, 1973(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) it is only the Collector of the district who can consider - 2 - the validity or otherwise of the appellate order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms but in the present case as the revisional order was passed by the Additional Collector, the same is wholly without jurisdiction and on this ground itself the order dated 26.3.2006 be quashed and matter be remitted back to the Collector of the district. In this connection he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Most. Babuni Devi Versus State of Bihar and others, reported in 1997(2) PLJR, 404 and with reference to the law laid down in the aforesaid reported case learned counsel submits that the Collector of the district is the District Collector and not the Additional Collector and the revisional order passed by the Additional Collector be set aside. 3. Aforesaid submission has been refuted by the counsel for the state as also private respondents with reference to the notification of the State Government bearing Memo No.586(8) dated 28.5.2008 contained in Annexure-X to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as also private respondent no.6, perusal whereof indicates that thereunder the Additional Collector has been notified as Collector under the Act, which is defined under Section-2(c) of the Act. 4. In my opinion, the inclusion of the Additional Collector as Collector under the Act will not authorize him to exercise the powers of the Collector of the district, who is vested with the jurisdiction to consider the revision application. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.3.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar, Annexure-5 is set aside and the matter is remitted - 3 - back to the Collector, Katihar to hear afresh the Mutation Revision No.910 of 2005 after calling for the records of the said revision case from the office of the Additional Collector and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within a reasonable time. Petitioner and private respondents are directed to appear before the Collector, Katihar on 18.3.2010 along with a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)