IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8325 of 2009 Bindeshwari Mehta S/o Late Sunder Mehta, Resident of Village Makdampur tola, Jhitkiya, P.O. & P.S. Korha & District Katihar Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 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, Korha Anchal, Katihar, who rejected his request under order dated 15.12.1994, Annexure-3, whereafter the matter was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar, who allowed the appeal under order dated 15.7.1996, Annexure-2. The appellate order was questioned by the private respondent before the Additional Collector, Katihar, who under order dated 26.3.2009, Annexure- 1 set aside the appellate order dated 15.7.1996, Annexure-2 and restored original order dated 15.12.1994, Annexure-3 passed by the Circle Officer. Petitioner has questioned the validity of the revisional order dated 26.3.2009, Annexure-1 passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar 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 was passed by the Additional Collector, is wholly without jurisdiction and on this ground itself 2 the order dated 26.3.2009, Annexure-1 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, it is submitted that the Collector of the district is the District Collector and not the Additional Collector and order passed by the Additional Collector disposing of the revision application 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. 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 26.3.2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar, Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Katihar to hear afresh the Mutation Revision No.441 3 of 2006-07 after calling for the records of the said revision case from the office of the Additional Collector, Katihar and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within a reasonable time. Petitioner and private respondents are directed to appear before the Collector, Katihar on 18.3.2010 along with a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)