IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4009 of 2002 Kamleshwar Sah, son of Jugeshwar Sah, resident of village Minarpur, Post Office- Hajipur, P.S. Town Hajipur, District-Vaishali….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Hajipur. 5. Asharfi Singh, son of Late Munilal Singh, resident of Village- Sadhullahpur, Post Office-Sadhullahpur, Police Station-Hajipur, District- Vaishali. ………………………………..Respondents. ----------- 3. 19. 01. 09. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Respondent State as well as Respondent No. 5 The petitioner challenges the order dated 2oth November, 2001, passed by the Additional Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Mutation Revision No. 3 of 1992-93, whereby the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur, in Mutation Appeal No. 35 of 1991-92, was set aside. The Respondent No. 5 made an application for mutation of his name in the records of right pertaining to Khata No. 33, Survey Plot No. 863, measuring about 0.35 Decimal and odd in Village- Jharua, District-Vaishali. The same was allowed by the Anchal Adhikari, as per its order dated 10. 04. 1989, as contained in Annexure-3. On the appeal of the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hajipur, Hajipur, the order of the Anchal Adhikari was set aside vide order dated 29. 6. 1992, as contained in Annexure-4. Further, on revision preferred by Respondent No. 5, the same was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, - 2 - as contained in Annexure-3, was set aside vide order dated 20.11. 2002, as contained in Annexure-5. It is submitted notwithstanding the fact that, the petitioner could not get proper opportunity to contest the said revision. It is further submitted that order passed by the Additional Collector, Vaishaili, had no jurisdiction to entertain and pass the order on the revision in terms of Section of 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Since, it is the Collector of the District is only power to pass order on such revision. In support of his submissions, the petitioner relied the decision of this Court in case of Most. Babuni Devi Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1997 (2) PLJR page 404. This Court has held to the effect that Deputy Collector/Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the order on revision under Section 16 of the aforementioned act. In other words, submission is that order passed by the Additional Collector, as contained in Annexure-5, is wholly without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as Respondent No. 5, opposed the proper and fairly submits that in terms of Section 16, it is the Collector of the District who is in power to pass order on revision under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. However, since the petitioner has admittedly filed a Civil Suit vide Title Suit No. 402 of 1998, pending in the court of Sub Judge Ist, Vaishali at Hajipur, challenging therein the genuineness of sale deed in respect to land in dispute and on the basis of which the - 3 - mutation over the land was allowed in favour of Respondent No. 5. Besides, challenging the genuineness, the petitioner has also sought declaration of Title and recover of possession. In this view of the matter, purpose will be served in quashing the order passed by the Additional Collector, contained in Annexure-5. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and on perusal of their respective pleadings, it has been fairly submitted by the petitioner as well as counsel for the Respondent State and Respondent No. 5, that Respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur, had no jurisdiction to pass the order on the revision under the aforementioned Act. Since the District Collector is the authority in power to pass order on revision. In this view of the matter, the order passed by Respondent No. 2, as contained in Annexure-5, without jurisdiction the same can not be sustained in law and as such in the order contained in Annexure-5, is quashed. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)