IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13061 OF 2010 RAJENDRA RAI, SON OF LATE RAJ BANSHI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHRANPUR PIPARI, POLICE STATION KARGAHAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, SASARAM, ROHTAS 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KARGAHAR, ROHTAS 6. LAKSHMI RAI, SON OF LATE RAJ BANSHI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHRANPUR PIPARI, POLICE STATION KARGAHAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** 2 13/08/2010 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in Revision Case no. 63 of 2008 under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The only challenge of the petitioner is that the Collector of the District is empowered under Section 16 of the Act to hear revision applications and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram is without jurisdiction. I have perused the order of the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector has based his order on the degree and judgment delivered by the Subordinate Judge, Sasaram in Title (Partition) Suit No. 48 of 1998. The mutation has been allowed in terms of the degree and judgment of the suit. The order per se is not illegal, of course the order of the Subordinate Judge would be 2 subject to the final orders subsequently passed by any competent Court. In any event, the Collector under the Act is the only competent authority to hear a revision application. In this case, I am not calling upon the respondent no. 6 to answer to the writ application, in view of the fact that it is well settled law by several judgments of this Court reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 444 and 2001 (3) PLJR 54 that the Collector of the district is the competent authority to hear revisions. In the result, the impugned order dated 04.12.2009 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Collector, who will hear the revision application after issuing notice to the respondent no. 6, and dispose of the revision application within a period of six months from the date of appearance of respondent no. 6 and receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )