IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13412 of 2006 BHARAT SINGH & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 18.07.2008 The petitioners had filed an application for mutation in terms of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, mutation was allowed. The private respondents preferred appeal in terms of Section 15 thereof to the LRDC, while the proceedings were pending before the LRDC, the private respondents moved the Collector of the district. The Collector of the district in purported exercise of power under Section 16 of the Act, being power of superintendence called for the records from the LRDC and disposed of the matter. Against this order of the Collector of the district the petitioner moved the Commissioner purporting to be in terms of Section 17 of the Act. The Commissioner, though, observed that Section 17 having been deleted as far back as in 1975, he and no jurisdiction in the matter any more. He proceeded to observe that the Collector had acted wrongly in transferring an appeal to himself from the LRDC and disposing it of. As he has no jurisdiction 2 in the matter, he could not grant any relief. It is stated that the order of Collector in effect has reversed the order of the Anchal Adhikari before whom the petitioner had succeeded. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the Collector is a revisional jurisdiction and he was incompetent to transfer an appeal to himself and decide the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, with consent of parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the submission of the learned counsel is misconceived as is the finding of the learned Commissioner. Firstly, once the learned Commissioner found that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. Section 17 having been deleted as far back as in 1975. He should not have spoken any further much less giving any finding with regard to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Collector of the District. All he could do was to reject the application before him as not maintainable. Without going into the merits, the order of the Commissioner, 3 thus, on the face of it is misconceived. Coming to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector has effectually transferred an appeal from LRDC and disposed it of, a thing which could not do under revisional jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act. I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission. Section 16 : Revision- The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit: Provided that the Collector shall not entertain 4 any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order: Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The reference to the aforesaid Section 3 show that it’s heading is revision but when we go through the contents of the substantive part of the Section it would clearly transpire that the jurisdiction is of superintendence. The Section would indicate that the Collector of the district can either be moved or he can suo motu exercise the jurisdiction. Further, he can sit in revision nor any order passed by any authority subordinate to him under the act of his own or on an application by any party. 5 Further, he can examine the records of any case pending before any authority or disposed of by any authority. These provisions would show that if a proceeding is being improperly conducted by his subordinate, may it be the Appellate Authority; the Collector of the district has the jurisdiction to call for the records of those proceedings and look into them and pass appropriate orders. This is the jurisdiction of superintendence. The power as exercised by the Collector of the district in the present case is thus not without jurisdiction. The writ petition, thus, merits no consideration and is dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)