IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6466 of 2002 SURESHWARDHARI SINHA SON OF LATE MADANDHARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF DHARAHRA HOUSE NAYA TOLA, PATNA, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA ------PETITIONER VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-SETTLEMENT OFFICER, PATNA. 3.SRI BHARAT RAM, THE OFFICER-IN CHARGE, SETTLEMENT OFFICE, PATNA. 4.THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, PATNA. 5.KAMTA PRASAD, SON OF MUKHLAL GOPE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SIKANDARPUR, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. ------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Keshav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Anwar Karim, GAC to SCV For Respondent no.5 : Mr K.N. Choube, Sr. Advocate ----- 5. 18.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5 and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th of October, 2001 passed in Case No.93 of 2001, vide Annexure 5, whereby the objection filed by respondent no.5 under sub-section (2) of section 103A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was allowed ignoring the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, whereby the objection was rejected by order dated 27.7.2000 passed in Case No.2/99, vide Annexure 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order contained in letter dated 1.4.2002 (Annexure 8) passed by respondent no.2, whereby he refused - 2 - to entertain the application of the petitioner alleging grievances that respondent no.3, who had no authority to pass such order as Bihta Anchal was not entrusted to respondent no.3 as per Annexure 4 for disposing of the revision preferred against the order rejecting the objection. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that notwithstanding the fact that Respondent no.3 Shri Bharat Ram, the Charge Officer was not competent to dispose of the revision filed by respondent no.5 since the dispute in question arises out of Bihta Anchal and for deciding the revision cases arising out of the said Anchal one Sri Sheo Narain Ojha, Charge Officer was entrusted, which would appear on perusal of the order issued by respondent no.2, as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application. It is further submitted that said respondent no.3 passed the order, as contained in Annexure 5, without considering the case of the petitioner. The said Charge Officer although took into consideration the documents filed by respondent no.5, but did not consider and take notice of the documents filed by the petitioner. In other way, the submission is that notwithstanding that the respondent no.3 had no authorisation has passed the order without due application of mind and that too without considering the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer rejecting the objection of respondent no.5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 submits that the petitioner had appeared before respondent no.3 and made submissions on the merits of the matter and as such having - 3 - taken the chance of success, the petitioner is not permitted to assail the same order after the order has gone against him. The petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction of the said Charge Officer, he cannot assail the same that the said Charge Officer should not have passed the order. Moreover, respondent no.3 was equally the Charge Officer, who was allotted different Anchal and one Sheo Narain Ojha, who was also a Charge Officer, allotted a different Anchal and, as such, it is not a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction, save and except some minor irregularities. Besides the above, it is submitted that the order passed by respondent no.3 on merits of the matters, as contained in Annexure 5, is correct and valid. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that respondent no.3 Shri Bharat Ram, who was the Charge Officer, was not allotted Bihta Anchal and as such he could not have passed the order relating to the cases arising out of Bihta Anchal. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioner’s primary objection is that the Charge Officer, namely, Shri Bharat Ram (respondent no.3) could not have disposed of the revision filed by respondent no.5 against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, rejecting his objection. However, on perusal of the order, as contained in Annexure 5, it would appear that respondent no.3 had taken note of the documents filed by respondent no.5 and I do not find consideration of the documents filed either by respondent no.5 or the petitioner and, as such, the finding that the claim of respondent no.5, who was the petitioner before him, is correct - 4 - is not supported by any discussion of the documents or the reasons in support of such finding. Since the claims and the counter claims of the petitioner and respondent no.5 are seriously disputed on facts, and, as such, in the absence of any discussion or the reasonings for arriving at any logical conclusion to decide the case of either of the parties, the matter needs to be considered in the light of the claims and their respective documents after proper appraisal. As such, in my opinion, the present competent authority under sub-section (3) of section 103A of the Act should pass the order afresh on the revision application filed by the respondent no.5, in accordance with law considering the respective claims of the parties and the respective documents in support of such claims expeditiously. Accordingly, the orders, as contained in Annexures 5 and 8, are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate-Cum-Settlement Officer, Patna (respondent no.2) for placing the revision application filed by respondent no.5 before the competent officer under sub-section(3) of section 103A of the Act. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)