IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15267 of 2009 1. JIPENDRA PRASAD YADAV S/O BASUDEV RAI VILL.- KATKUIAN, P.O.- AHIRAULIA, P.S.- CHIRAIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 3. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR SIKRAHNA, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER ANCHAL- CHIRAIYA, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 5. SHANKAR RAI S/O RAMASHISH RAI VILL.- KATKUIAN, P.O.- AHIRAULIA, P.S.- CHIRAIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate. Mr. V.R.Bharti, Advocate. ===== 3. 13.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sikrahna, East Champaran, Motihari in Mutation Appeal No. 01/2008-09, Annexsure-2, whereunder the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sikrahna, East Champaran has set aside the order dated 4.3.2006/30.9.2006, Annexure-1, whereunder mutation of the lands-in-question was allowed in favour of the petitioner with reference to a sale-deed executed in his favour by Ram Chandra Rai, son of Choudhary Rai dated 2.5.2005. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that against the order dated 04.03.2006/30.09.2006, Annexure-1 the appeal was filed before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms on 22.2.2008 i.e. much beyond the period of limitation and without even considering the fact that the appeal was barred by limitation and petition to condone the delay was not even filed, the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms has proceeded to set aside the mutation order. 4. From perusal of the order dated 09.07.2009, Annexure-2 it appears that the appeal is numbered as 01/2008-09. In the circumstances, - 2 - the appeal must have been filed in the year 2008. As such, I am satisfied that without condoning the delay in filing the appeal the appellate court ought not to have proceeded with the appeal. Such submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner has been noted in paragraph 11 of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the point of limitation being point of jurisdiction this Court should entertain the writ petition ignoring the alternative remedy. I decline to do so in view of the alternative remedy provided under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and petitioner should agitate the matter raising the point of limitation as also the other points before the revisional authority who is the Collector of the district. 6. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 09.07.2009 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 01/2008-2009, Annexure-2 before the Collector, Motihari. The Collector, Motihari shall be obliged to consider the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the petitioner in filing the revision application as he has been prosecuting this writ petition against the order dated 09.07.2009, provided the revision is filed within 30 days from today. The Collector shall consider and dispose of the revision petition as early as possible, in any case within a reasonable time not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of the revision application along with a certified copy of this order. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)