IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.57 OF 2003 KRIPI YADAV, SON OF LATECHICHAI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANGANJ TOLA CHIKANI, POLICE STATION TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT SUPAUL VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSI DIVISION, SAHARSA 3. THE COLLECTOR, SUPAUL 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL 6. TRILOKI YADAV, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANGANJ TOLA CHIKANI, POLICE STATION TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. UPENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE MS. VEENA KUMARI JAISWAL, ADVOCATE MS. CHANDRAKALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MR. KAMESHWAR GUPTA, G.P. II ************ 11 12/07/2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the private respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-1 by which the jamabandi in the name of the petitioner has been recommended for cancellation by the Anchal Adhikari to the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer has cancelled the jamabandi vide order dated 03.07.1998 passed in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 6 of 1997-98. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed for default on 29.03.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application being Revision Case No. 20 of 2001. The revisional order indicates that the revision 2 application was dismissed for default. The restoration application was also dismissed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the restoration application was wrongly dismissed as the petitioner was unwell from 08th January, 2000 to 5th June, 2000. The Revisional Court has wrongly disbelieved the certificate of Doctor indicating that the petitioner was unwell. The fact of the case is that the petitioner claims that he is the settlee from the ex-landlord. His further case is that the landlord had filed the return in his name. He has been paying the rent to the State of Bihar since 1956. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer has no power to cancel the jamabandi. On perusal of the order dated 18.05.1998, it appears that the Anchal Adhikari did not find truth in the case of the petitioner and therefore, recommended as follows:- mijksDr lHkh fopkj.k ds vk/kkj ij fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd oknh ds nkok esa iqjkuk losZ [kfr;ku lu 41&42 dk lsl fjHksY;wos’ku fjVuZ gky losZ dk ipkZ tks lefiZr fd;k gS og nkok dks lgh izekf.kr djrk gS vr% vkosnd ds i{k esa eSa tekcUnh lq/kkj djrs gq, izfroknh ds tekcUnh ua 177 dks jn~n djus gsrq vuq’kalk dh tkrh gS A vfHkys[k vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] f=os.khxat dks Hkstsa A The Sub Divisional Officer on receipt of the 3 record has confirmed the recommendations of the Anchal Adhikari and ordered for the correction of the jamabandi. It is the Anchal Adhikari who has passed the order of cancellation and the Sub Divisional Officer being the senior most Officer in the Sub Division has ordered for correction of the jamabandi. It is not as if the Sub Divisional Officer has conducted the case, called upon the parties and after hearing them, has passed the quasi judicial order. It is merely in the capacity of the head of the Sub-Division that he has put his stamp on the recommendation of the Anchal Adhikari. The second point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed the appeal before the Collector whereas the appeal against the order of the Anchal Adhikari would lie before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and a revision under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act would lie before the Collector. The Collector is higher authority to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and, therefore, once the petitioner has submitted the application before the Collector and the Collector being the higher authority than the land Reforms Deputy Collector, he has entertained the application and as such the petitioner cannot raise this issue at this stage. In any event, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution and 4 the restoration application filed for restoration of the appeal was also dismissed. In view of the aforesaid facts, ultimately the case has to be decided after proper enquiry where the petitioner has to support his case by filing relevant documents to show his possession. It would be open for the petitioner to resort to the legal remedy by filing a civil suit. As far as the orders with respect to the cancellation of jamabandi/mutation are concerned, they would obviously be subject to the decision of the competent Court. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )