IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19397 of 2010 BIBHUTESHWAR SINGH S/O LATE KAMESHWAR SINGH, R/O MOHALLA- BENTA DR. C.D. SINGH COMPUS, OPPOSITE SIDE OF R.B. MEMORIAL, POLICE STATION-LAHERIA SARAI (BALBHADRAPUR SHIVIR), DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 3. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER BAHADURPUR, DARBHANGA, POLICE STATION-BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 6. MAHAMAYA DEVI W/O PITAMBAR JHA, R/O MOHALLA-BENTA, DR. C.D. SINGH COMPUS, OPPOSITE SIDE OF R.B. MEMORIAL, POLICE STATION-LAHERIA SARAI, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ………….Respondents ----------- 03 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure-9) passed by respondent No. 2 in Miscellaneous Case No. 07 of 2003. According to the writ petition, mother of the petitioner had approached the respondent-Deputy Collector Land Reforms, whereby on a consideration of the materials on record it was found that no case for interference by invocation of Rule 76 of Bihar Practise and Procedure Manual has been made out and accordingly the application preferred by the mother of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially mutation in respect of the land claimed by the mother of the petitioner was allowed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari. Subsequently, the same was stayed at the instance of respondent no. 6. Aggrieved by aforesaid stay of the order allowing mutation in favour of mother of the petitioner, a proceeding was levied before the respondent-Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, which was considered and rejected by order dated 16.06.1999 (Annexure-2). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application before the respondent- Collector, Darbhanga, which was considered and rejected by order 07.05.2002 (Annexure-6). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present proceeding was lodged before the respondent-Commissioner invoking jurisdiction conferred on him under Rule 76 of Bihar Practise and Procedure Manual. 4. From the materials on record, it appears that both the parties namely the mother of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 have instituted suits vide Title Suit No. 08 of 1998 and Title Suit No. 76 of 1998. Those suits are pending consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that when the said case became ripe for consideration, the applicant (mother of the petitioner) had died and, as such, an application was filed for substituting the petitioner in place of his mother. It is the submission of the petitioner that without considering the said application the matter was considered on merit and disposed of. This Court, on a perusal of the materials on record finds that no case for invocation of the writ jurisdiction is made out. This is what the respondent-Commissioner has noticed in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order (Annexure-9):- “3. I perused the record, relevant documents and the provisions under Bihar Practice & Procedure Manual relevant excerpt from Rule 76 is as follows. “ Powers of control and supervision are discretionary, and superior authorities exercising such powers are not ordinarily disposed to interfere except in the following classes of cases- (1) Where a subordinate officer has improperly refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him; (2) Where such officer has acted without jurisdiction; (3) Where such officer in the exercise of the jurisdiction diction has signally failed in his duty, or (4) generally where it is necessary for the purpose of preventing gross abuse or gross injustice.” 4. From the record and the argument made by the learned advocate of the petitioner during hearing I do not find that there is any evidence that warrants invocation of any provision of Rule 78 of Bihar Practice & Procedure Manual.” Safik ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. ) 5. The submission of the petitioner that Rule 76 of the Bihar Practise and Procedure Manual would vest the Commissioner with the supervisory jurisdiction, in my view, does not hold good in view of settled position in law that if the proceeding is covered under the Act of the Legislature, then any such Rule/Rules which have no statutory support, shall have no application. However, considering the submission of the petitioner that mother of the petitioner had died when the impugned order was passed, it is observed that any finding adverse to her interest made in the order impugned shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner. 6. The application is disposed of accordingly.