IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8418 of 2009 Mostt.Ramdhari @ Ramdharo Kuwar, wife of Late Bhikhari Thakur, resident of village Mathauli, P.S. Bhore, District Gopalganj Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Collector, Gopalganj 3. Additional Collector, Gopalganj 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathuwa, District Gopalganj 5. Anchal Adhikari, Bhore Anchal, P.S. Bhore, District Gopalganj 6. Mostt. Lachia, widow of Late Chandrabali Gond, resident of village Mathauli, P.S. Bhore, District Gopalganj ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate For the Respondent no.6 :Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate For the State :Mr. A.K. Sharan, S.C.20 03/ 15.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner had applied for mutation of the lands in question before the Circle Officer, Bhore, who allowed his request under order dated 10.7.2006, passed in Mutation Case No. 06 of 2005-06, Annexure-2, whereafter the matter was taken up in appeal by the private Respondent no.6, vide Mutation Appeal Case No. 34 of 2006-07 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathuwa, who dismissed the appeal under order dated 2.8.2007, Annexure-3 affirming the order of the Circle Officer. The appellate order was questioned by the private respondent no.6 before the Additional Collector, Gopalganj by filing Mutation Revision No. 01 of 2008, who under order dated 29.5.2009, Annexure-5 set aside the original and appellate orders dated 10.7.2006 and 2.8.2007, passed by the Circle Officer, Bhore and Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathuwa. Petitioner has questioned the validity of the revisional order dated 29.5.2009, Annexure-5 passed by the Additional Collector, 2 Gopalganj 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 the validity or otherwise of the appellate order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms but in the present case the revisional order has been passed by the Additional Collector, the same is wholly without jurisdiction and on this ground itself the order dated 29.5.2009, Annexure-5 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 he states that the Collector of the district is the Collector of the District 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, 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. 3 4. In my opinion, the inclusion of the Additional Collector as Collector under the Act will not authorize the Additional Collector to exercise the power of the Collector of the district, who is vested with the jurisdiction to consider the revision application. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.5.2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Gopalganj, Annexure-5 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Gopalganj to hear afresh the Mutation Revision No.01 of 2008 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 respondent no.6 are directed to appear before the Collector, Gopalganj on 18.3.2010 along with a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)