IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11997 of 2002 NIRANJAN SINGH son of late Chaandrashekhar Singh, Resident of village Rajpur, P.S. Paraiya, District Gaya, … PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Gaya, 3. The Additional Collector, Gaya, 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Tekari, District Gaya, 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Paraiya, District Gaya, 6. Chandradip Prasad, 7. Triveni Prasad, 8. Sidhnath Prasad, sons of late Bhuwan Gope, residents of village Raja Bigha, P.S. Paraiya, District Gaya… .. … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Rekha Kumari, Advocate, For the S t a t e : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to SC V For Respondents 5 to 8: Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate. … 9 06.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State and learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 8. Writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2002 passed by the Collector in Rent Fixation Case No. 28/2000, whereby he has set aside the appellate order passed by the Additional Collectore, Gaya in Rent Fixation Appeal No. 33/99-2000 and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate court. The land in dispute relates to khata nos. 7 and 8. 2 Petitioner’s case is that the land originally was recorded in the name of Rani Bhuwineshwari Kunwar alias Bachcha Sahiba. According to the petitioner, the land appertaining to khata no. 7 was auction-sold in Case No. 744/1929-30, which was transferred on behalf of the auction purchaser in favour of one Lagan Brat Devi wife of Ram Ballabh Sharan Singh(cousin grand-father of the petitioner) by a registered sale deed dated 23.02.1951. The aforesaid purchaser died issueless and the petitioner, thus, acquired it by succession and he is continuously in its cultivating possession. The land of khata no. 8 was recorded in the name of Ram Raji Kunwar wife of Rup Narayan Singh(grand-father of the petitioner), and, thus, the petitioner in regard to the aforesaid land also is coming in possession of the land in question. One Bhuwan Gope, father of respondent nos. 6 to 8, filed an application before the Anchaladhikari, Paraiya, on 26.12.1998 for fixation of rent with regard to the lands in dispute, upon which a report was called from the Halka Karmachari/Circle Inspector and subsequently, Rent Fixation Case No. 1/98- 99 was initiated, wherein general public notice was issued and the records were sent to the Land Reforms Deputy 3 Collector, Tekari, District Gaya, who fixed the rent of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 25/- per acres in favour of the aforesaid Bhuwan Gope from the date of vesting of the Zamindari and transmitted the record to the Anchaladhikari, Paraiya, to issue the rent roll in favour of the father of the private respondents. The petitioner preferred Rent Fixation Appeal No. 33/99-2000 before the Additional Collector under Section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950(hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”) along with a limitation petition, which was admitted, delay in filing the appeal was condoned and after hearing the otherside the original order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms aforesaid, was set aside and direction was given to fix the rent in favour of the petitioner after canceling the demand made in favour of the otherside. The said Bhuwan Gope challenged the order of the Additional Collector before the Collector in Rent Fixation Case No. 28/2000. The Collector concerned after hearing both the sides remitted back the case before the Additional Collector for deciding the same afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises only a 4 short question of law that the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector is final order in the proceeding under the Act, which is judicial in nature, as the same has been passed after consideration of rival claims of the litigating parties, and also as there is no provision of any revision against that order under the scheme of the Act and Rules. It is submitted that the Collector of the District has no jurisdiction either revisional or otherwise to interfere into order passed in appeal under section 8 of the Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Shaikh Gajar v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1986 BLJR, 45. A Division Bench of this Court has held therein that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction either revisional or otherwise to interfere with an order passed in appeal under section 8 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 8 in reply submitted that the provisions of section 4(hh) of the Act empowers the Collector of the District to make inquiries against the order with regard to rents of agricultural holdings and as such, the Collector was vested with the power to pass the order, as contained in annexure 5 3 of this writ petition, and, according to him, thus, there is no illegality in the order impugned. Learned counsel places reliance upon a decision of this Court rendered in Ram Lagan Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007(3) PLJR, 452, to demonstrate that as per the proviso of Section 4(hh) of the Act, the appeal would lie to the Collector of the District and not before the Collector under the Act. Thus, submission is that if the revisional order passed by the Collector of the District is without jurisdiction, then even the appellate order passed in favour of the petitioner by the Additional Collector, Gaya, is equally without jurisdiction, as in the aforesaid manner the appeal would lie before the Collector of the District and not before the Collector under the Act. I do not find force in the submissions raised on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8. This is an admitted position that the respondents have filed a petition for fixation of rent before the Anchaladhikari, which was sent to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Tekari, who had passed the original order. Against any order under Section 6 of the Act there is a provision of appeal under section 8 of the Act, which quoted as under: 6 “Section 8: Appeal against Collector’s order under Sections 5, 6 or 7.—An appeal against any Order of the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 5 or Section 6 or Section 7, if preferred within sixty days of such Order, shall lie to the prescribed authority [not below the rank of an Additional Collector] who shall dispose of the appeal according to the prescribed procedure.” The corresponding Rule to Section 8 of the Act provided under Rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951(hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules”) is as follows: “Rule 8: Appellate Authority under section 8.—(1) An appeal against an order of the Collector under section 5(2) or section 6 or 7 shall lie— (i) if such order is passed by any officer below the rank of an Additional Collector, to Additional Collector; (ii) if such order is passed by any Additional Collector, to the Collector of the district; and (iii) if such order is passed by the Collector of a District, to the Commissioner of the division. (2) The procedure to be followed by the appellate authority in disposing of appeals under sub-rule (1) shall, so far as may be, the same as is provided for civil appeals in the rules under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” It is apparent from Clause (1)(i) of the aforesaid 7 Rule that if the original order is passed by any officer below the rank of an Additional Collector, then the appeal would lie before the Additional Collector. In the case of Shaikh Gajar(supra) the appellate order was passed by the Collector, Motihari, which was challenged before the Commissioner concerned. In the aforesaid decision, a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- “4. The proceeding under section 6 of the Act is Judicial in nature in which rival claims of the litigating parties are determined and unless the law vested in the Commissioner, authority to ;interfere with the orders passed in the proceeding, the power in this regard cannot be assumed merely for the reason that the Collector is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner. Having regard to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act and the Rules, it must be held that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction either reevisional or otherwise to interfere with an order passed in appeal under section 8 of the Act. In Baldeo Prasad Sah v. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division(1) it was observed that there is no authority given to the Commissioner either within the framework of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or under the provisions of any of the rules framed under this Act to revise a judgment of the Collector made under section 6(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. I, therefore, held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Additional Collector. Accordingly, Annexure 1 is 8 quashed and the writ application is allowed, but without costs.” Thus, it is manifest from the aforesaid decision that against the appellate order neither any revision nor any second appeal lies before any authority under the scheme of the Act. So far section 4(hh) of the Act is concerned, those provisions are not applicable in the present case, as under the aforesaid provisions the Collector has been empowered to make inquiries into all cases of reduction or partial or entire remission of rents of agricultural holdings comprised in such estate or tenure made by the outgoing intermediaries either for a specified period or in perpetuity. Since the aforesaid provision does not apply in the present case, the authority cited in support of the aforesaid submission is also not applicable in the present case. I, thus, hold that the order passed by the Collector, Gaya, in Rent Fixation Case No. 28/2000 filed against the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector concerned is wholly without jurisdiction and is set aside. 9 In the result, this writ application is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)