IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6166 of 2002 1. BHUBANESHWARI YADAV 2. KAMLESHWARI YADAV BOTH SONS OF LATE GANGO YADAV @ GANGA YADAV, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KUSHAHA, P.S. TRIBENIGANJ, DISTRICT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS AT SUPAUL, DISTRICT SUPAUL 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, TRIBENIGANJ, DISTRICT- SUPAUL 5. SHRI KINU YADAV SON OF LATE MOTI YADA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUSHAHA, P.S. TRIBENIGANJ, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. ----------- 4 06.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6th of February, 2002 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa, respondent no.2, in Revision Case No. 4 of 2001, whereby the order dated 09.09.1999 passed in Revision Case No. 120/1987-88 arising out of a mutation proceeding has been set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction for want of inherent power to exercise the revisional jurisdiction by the Divisional Commissioner. It is submitted that after coming into force of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as stood after amendment by Bihar Act 3 of 1983 which omitted section 2 17 of the Act, whereby the second revision was maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner had no power to entertain second revision. As such, the impugned order dated 6th of February, 2002(Annexure-6) passed in Revision Case No. 4 of 2001 deserves to be quashed for being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 as also for the State does not dispute the above submission of the petitioner, however, it is submitted that the order dated 09.09.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Supaul in Revision Case No. 120/1987-88 is equally bad since under section 16 of the aforesaid Act the revisional power vests with the Collector of the District, although no such objection has been taken in the counter affidavit as also before the Additional Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the aforesaid revision application before the Additional Collector was filed before coming into force of the aforesaid Act which came into operation in the district of Supaul w.e.f. 18.01.1991 vide S.O. No.81 dated 18th January, 1991 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of the Section 1 of the aforesaid Act. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it is not in dispute that after 3 coming into force of the aforesaid Act as amended by Act 3 of 1983 the Divisional Commissioner no longer was empowered to entertain the second revision which he was holding previously under clause (10) of Government instructions contained in letter no. E/XXIV-305/63-101- LR dated 4th/7th of January, 1963. Under the provisions of section 17 of the unamended aforesaid Act the Divisional Commissioner was empowered to entertain the revision application, however the Act was later amended by Act 3 of 1983 thereby omitting the provision of section 17 of the aforesaid Act. In view of the discussion and the extant law, the Divisional Commissioner, Saharasa, respondent no.2, has no power to entertain the second revision. That being the position, the order dated 6th February, 2002, as contained in Annexure-6, is, hereby, quashed. However, since the order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure-4) is not under consideration in this writ application, no observation is made on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)