IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3596 of 2002 1. BISHESHWAR DAS 2. BISHWANATH PRASAD DAS BOTH SONS OF RAMESHWAR DAS 3. RADHA KRISHNA DAS 4. GAURI SHANKAR DAS BOTH SONS OF BISHW2ANATH DAS, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMBISHANPUR, P.S. RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECOR, SUPAUL 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORS, BIRPUR DISTRICT SUPAUL 5. THE CIRCULE OFFICER, RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL 6. ABDUL SHAKUR SON OF LATE ALIGAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JIWACHHPUR, P.S. CHHATAPUR, ANCHAL CHHATAPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL ----------- 5 05.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, respondent no.6 as also for the State. Petitioners challenge the order dated 9th of January, 2002 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Divison, Saharsa, respondent no.2 in Revenue Revision Case No. 29 of 1997-98 setting aside the appellate order dated 26.12.1997 passed by the Additional Collector, Supaul, respondent no.3, in Revenue Appeal No. 116 of 1991. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that notwithstanding the merits of the matter under the amended provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Divisional Commissioner has no power to entertain the revision application against the appellate order. It is further submitted that even under the old 2 provisions dealing with the mutation matter under clause (10) of the Government instructions contained in letter no. E/XXIV-305/63-101-LR dated 4th/7th of January, 1963, the Divisional Commissioner could had entertained the second revision only and not the first revision. In the instant case the very first revision was entertained and disposed of by the impugned order, and as such, the same is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 as also for the State could not refute the submissions that under the amended aforesaid Act the Commissioner has no power to entertain and under the oly instructions as referred to the above the Commissioner could have entertained only the second revision and not the first revision. In view of the submissions of the parties where they agree that the order dated 9th of January, 2002 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no.2 could not have been passed for want of jurisdiction, the order dated 9th of January, 2002 is quashed. However, it will be open for the respondent no.6 to file an appropriate application for revision, if so advised, before an appropriate authority along with an application for condoning the delay, if any. The authority concerned, while considering 3 the application for condoning the delay, shall take into consideration the time spent on account of pendency of this writ application as also the time spent in pursuing the revision application no. 29 of 1997-98 before the respondent no.2 and thereafter shall pass the order in accordance with law. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)