IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4874 of 2002 JAGDISH YADAV, SON OF ANANDI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SITANABAD, TOLA-KUMEDAN TOLA, POLICE STATION- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA -----PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, KOSI PARMANDAL, SAHARSA. 3.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SAHARSA. 4.THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRCIT SAHARSA. 5.THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT- SAHARSA. 6.MOHAN YADAV, SON OF LATE ABADH YADAV. 7.GONAR YADAV, SON OF LATE ABODH YADAV. 8.GAJADHAR YADAV, SON OF JALO YADAV. 9.BANADUR YADAV,SON OF GULTEN YADAV. 10.TALO YADAV, SON OF GULTEN YADAV. RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 10 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SITANABAD, TOLA-KUMEDAN TOLA, P.S. SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA. -----RESPONDENTS ---------- For the Petitoner : Mr K.N. Chaubey,Sr. Advocate with Messrs Uday Chand Prasad & B. K. Sinha, Advocates For the State : Mr Dhurendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. V For the Respondents : Mr Binod Kumar Ambastha, Advocate 4. 29.1.2009 Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents no. 6 to 10 as well as the State. The petitioner challenges the order dated 6.6.2001 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (respondent no.2) in Mutation Revision Case No.35 of 1995-1996 setting aside the revisional order dated 17.10.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Saharsa in Mutation Revision Case no.19/94-95/27/95-96, vide Annexures 7 and 6 respectively. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the 2 Commissioner, Kosi Parmandal, Saharsa (respondent no.2) had no jurisdiction to entertain the second revision against the order passed by the Additional Collector on revision itself against the order passed by the appellate authority. It is submitted that against the order dated 11.1.1994 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Simri (respondent no.4) in Revenue Appeal Case no.1 of 1993-1994, vide Annexure 4, the petitioner had filed Mutation Revision Case No.62/93-94 before respondent no.2, which was rejected holding that the power to entertain revision by the Divisional Commissioner does not subsist in view of the Bihar Act 3 of 1983, vide order dated 9.5.1994 (Annexure 5). The petitioner thereafter filed fresh Mutation Revision Case No.19/94-95/27/95-96 against the aforesaid order dated 11.1.1994 (Annexure 4) before the Additional Collector, Saharsa (respondent no.3) which he allowed as per the order dated 17.10.1995 (Annexure 6). The respondent no.6, however, filed the second revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa (respondent no.2), which was entertained and allowed by the impugned order dated 6.6.2001 (Annexure 7). Learned counsel submits that the power to entertain the second revision application by the Commissioner of the Division since no longer existed after coming into force of the Bihar Act 3 of 1983, the impugned order dated 6.6.2001 is wholly illegal being without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents is not in a position to refute the above submissions of the petitioner. 3 Considering the submissions of the parties and in the above facts and circumstances, the order dated 6.6.2001, as contained in Annexure 7, being wholly without jurisdiction is not sustainable in law and, therefore, quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)