IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17990 of 2011 1. Sunita Devi W/O Anil Kumar R/O Village- Adalchak, Police Station- Masaurhi, District- Patna 2. Sheo Nandan Singh S/O Late Raja Ram Singh R/O Village- Hasadih, Police Station- Masaurhi, District- Patna. ---Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Collector, Patna 3. Additional District Collector, Patna 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Masaurhi, Patna 5. The Circle Officer, Masaurhi, Patna 6. Siyamani Devi W/O Shyam Nandan Singh R/O Village- Hansadih, Police Station- Masaurhi, District- Patna. ---Respondents. ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20215 of 2011 1. Mosamat Bhukhiya Devi W/O Late Sukhdeo Mandal R/O Village- Kabarkol Tola, P.O.- Kabar Anchal, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar 2. Mukesh Mandal S/O Late Sukhdeo Mandal R/O Village- Kabarkol Tola, P.O.- Kabar Anchal, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar 3. Ramlal Mandal S/O Late Sukhdeo Mandal R/O Village- Kabarkol Tola, P.O.- Kabar Anchal, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar ----Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar 3. The Additional Collector, Katihar 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar 5. The Circle Officer, Barari, Katihar 6. Ram Chandra Mandal S/O Late Sita Ram Mandal (As Alleged) R/O Village-Kabarkol Tola, P.O.-Kabar Anchal, P.S.-Barari, District- Katihar ---Respondents. ---------------------------------- 04 14.12.2011 Both the writ petitions raise common issue, and as such, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together. The present order shall govern them. In CWJC No. 17990 of 2011 the petitioners have called in question the order dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent-Additional Collector exercising revisional jurisdiction 2 under Bihar Tenants’ Holdings ( Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, ( for short ‘Act’). In CWJC No. 20215 of 2011 petitioners have questioned the sustainability of the order dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the Additional Collector exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act. Heard Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of CWJC No. 20215 of 2011, Mr. Amaresh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing in support of CWJC No. 17990 of 2011. Learned Government Pleader no. 25 appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and its officials in CWJC No. 17990 of 2011 and Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader no. 22 appeared on behalf of the respondent –State in CWJC No. 20215 of 2011. Learned counsel(s) for the petitioners made diverse submissions to assail the impugned order(s). It is contended that in view of the provision contained in the Act, as they stand, the Additional Collector shall have no jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers. It is next contended that the recent notification issued by the Government shall have no effect of amendment since by a notification statutory provision cannot be amended. Learned counsel(s) for the State, on the other hand, contended that the issue raised by the petitioners relating to jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of the District to exercise revisional power was the issue raised in the case of Amarendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar since reported in 2011(3) PLJR 422. This Court, on a consideration of entire conspectus of the 3 matter, concluded in para 17 thereof that the Additional Collector shall have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of revision application filed under the Act. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. It appears that the issue raised by the petitioners was/were raised in Amarendra Kumar Singh (supra). A division bench of this Court, on going through the entire provisions, found in paragraph no.17 that Additional Collector was duly empowered to exercise all revisional power of the Collector of the District under Section 16 of the Act. In view of the said ratio laid down by a division bench of this Court, it is difficult for this Court to take a different view in the matter. Regard being had to the above, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel(s) for the petitioners that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to pass orders as contained in Annexures-3 and 5 respectively of the writ petitions. Adverting to the next submission of the learned counsel(s) for the petitioners that while deciding the matter certain observations/findings have been recorded in the impugned order(s) (Annexures-3 & 5 respectively) relating to the title of the land, this Court is of the view that any observation relating to title of the land made in the impugned order(s) shall not prejudice the case of the parties in case they agitate the matter before a Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance. Law is well -settled that mutation of name in the revenue records is only for the purpose of 4 realization of land rent/revenue. It neither creates nor extinguishes title. With the observations made above, both applications are disposed of. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)