IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6903 of 2010 1. GANESH MANDAL, S/O LATE BALDEO MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE- CHHOTA MUSKIPUR, P.S.- GOGARI, DISTRICT-KHAGARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, KHAGARIA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KHAGARIA. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS,GOGARI,DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER,GOGARI,DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. 6. BHOLA MANDAL @ BHOLA GOGARI, S/O LATE BHAROSI MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE- CHHOTI MUSKIPUR,WARD NO.18,P.S.- GOGARI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA. For the Petitioner :Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr. P.K. Singh, S.C.21 03/ 29.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2009, Annexure-4, passed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria, whereunder order dated 27.6.2008, Annexure-3, passed by the D.C.L.R., Khagaria setting aside the order dated 20.6.2005, Annexure- 1, passed by the Circle Officer, Gogari has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 24.11.2009, Annexure-4 is wholly without jurisdiction and the Additional Collector, Khagaria has no jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to look into the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 27.6.2008, Annexure-3, which was in favour of the petitioner, as such jurisdiction is vested in the Collector of the District alone. 4. In view of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act, there is no difficulty in holding that the order dated 24.11.2009, - 2 - Annexure-4 is wholly without jurisdiction, but before holding so it is required that private Respondent no.6 in whose favour the said order has been passed should be noticed and service of notice and hearing thereafter is likely to take some time. Accordingly, in consideration of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is already in possession of the lands in question, being maternal grandson of Antu Mandal, the recorded tenant, is given liberty to seek declaration of his title over the lands in question by filing civil suit before the competent Civil Court. During pendency of the suit, if his possession is disturbed by private Respondent no.6, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for grant of injunction and the competent Civil Court while considering the case of the petitioner, shall bear in mind that Bhola Mandal, private Respondent no.6 had no connection with the recorded tenant, Antu Mandal, as he was initially claiming the lands in question through the sale deed, but subsequently claimed that he is also related to Antu Mandal. 5. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ application is disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)