IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16346 of 2009 BEDAMI DEVI, wife of Kailu Yadav, resident of Village- Ram Nagar (Gohari), P.O.- Bannu Bagicha, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai :--- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Revenue Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Divisional Commissioner, Munger. 4. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 5. The Additional Collector, Lakhisarai. 6. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Lakhisarai. 7. The Circle Officer, Lakhisarai Circle, Lakhisarai. 8. Sri Yadav, Son of Late Kailu Yadav, resident of Village- Ram Nagar (Gohari), P.O.- Bannu Bagicha, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai. 9. Suresh Yadav, Son of Singheshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Ram Nagar (Gohari), P.O.- Bannu Bagicha, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai :--- Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner :- M/S Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Ranvijay Singh & Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates. For Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 :- M/S. Ambika Bhagat & Kamal Kumar Sinha, Advocates. For the State :--- Mr. A.A.G.-4. ======= 2. 27.11.2009. Sri Ambika Bhagat has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2009 passed by the Additional Collector, Lakhisarai in Case No. (Mutation Appeal) 01/2008-09, Annexure-6, whereunder order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Lakhisarai in Mutation Appeal no. 06/2007-08, Annexure-4 has been set aside. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter - 2 - referred to as the “Act”) the Collector of the district has got the revisional jurisdiction but in the instant case ignoring such provision private Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 approached the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhisarai who entertained case no. (Mutation Appeal) 01/2008-09 arising out of order dated 21.09.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Lakhisdarai and such exercise of power by the Additional District Magistrate, Lakhisarai being in teeth of Section 16 of the Act the order is wholly without jurisdiction and should be set aside. 4. Counsel for Respondent nos. 8 and 9 has opposed the aforesaid submission. He submits that the Additional Collector entertained the aforesaid case no. (Mutation Appeal) 01/2008-09 as he was authorized to do so by the Collector of the District and in view of the authorization of the learned Collector of the District this Court should uphold the order dated 04.09.2009, Annexure-6. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for Private Respondent Nos. 8 and 9, I am of the view that the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act is absolutely clear which empowers only the Collector of the district to entertain any revision application arising out of the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. In the circumstances, the authorization - 3 - made by the District Collector is not in accordance with law and, accordingly, the order dated 04.09.2009 passed in Case No. (Mutation Appeal) 01/2008-09, Annexure-6 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the Collector of the district, Lakhisarai with direction to the Additional Collector to transfer the records of Mutation Appeal No. 01/2008-09 to the court of the Collector of the District, Lakhisarai who should entertain the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the petitioner herein and the private respondent nos. 8 and 9 who are directed to appear in the court of the Collector of the district, Lakhisarai on 21st December, 2009. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)