IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9522 of 2008 1.RAM NATH SAH son of Late Chhedi Sah 2.Most.Jaimanti Devi wife of Late Bishwanath Sah 3.Suresh Kumar Gupta son of late Bishwanath Sah 4.Ranjit Kumar son of Late Bishwanath Sah, all residents of village Radha Nagar P.S. and Anchal Katoria District Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Collector, Banka 3.The Additional Collector, Banka 4.The D.C.L.R.Banka 5.The Anchal Adhikari, Katoria,Banka 6.Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh,Revenue karamchari Halka No.4/5, Katoria Anchal District Banka. 7.Rajendra Sah son of Gaya Sah, resident of Village Radha Nagar, P.S. and Anchal Katoria District Banka presently posted as Branch Manager, State Bank of India at its Maheshmara Branch, P.S.Mohanpur District Deoghar (Jharkhand). ----------- 3 11.5.2009. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 2.2.2008 passed by the Collector, Banka in Misc. Case no.51 of 2001-02, whereby petitioner’s application for review of the order dated 3.9.2001, cancelling Jamabandi no.72 running in his name has been rejected. By order dated 3.9.2001, Jamabandi no.72 running in petitioners name, with respect to lands of Village Bhorsar Tola Majhaladih, Thana No.200/24 was rejected and order dated 8.3.2001 passed by the D.C.L.R. Banka in case no.3 of 2000-01 has been confirmed. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing entire proceeding of Misc.Case no.3/200-01 including the order dated 8.3.2001 and 23.8.2001 passed by D.C.L.R. Banka and the order dated 3.9.2001 passed by Collector, Banka whereby Jambandi no.72 and its subsequent Jamabandies no.92, 103 and 134 created from Jambandi no.72, belonging to the petitioner have been cancelled affirming Jamabandi no.15 in the name of respondent no.7 Rajendra 2 Sah. On perusal of the order passed by the Collector, Banka dated 2.2.2008, I find that review application was dismissed considering the fact that the Collector is not vested with review jurisdiction. I do not find any error in this finding. By the impugned order prayer of the petitioners for substituting his name in place of his brother Bishwanath Sah, in Misc. case no.51 of 2001-02 has been rejected. Miscellaneous case no.51 of 2001-02 was filed by Bishwanath Sah for mutating his name with respect to 8 decimals of land of Khata no.11 out of total 1 Bigha 1`0 Ktha and 16 dhurs Jamabandi no.72 had been created in the name of Doman Sah with respect to this land. The Collector rejected the claim of petitioners for substituting his name in place of Bishwanath Sah on the ground that Bishwanath Sah has got three sons and one widow. Since they are nearest legal heirs application for substitution should have been filed for substituting them. Petitioner cannot be treated as legal heir of Bishwanath Sah and be substituted in his place. Counsel for the petitioner submit that Bishwanath Sah had filed Miscellaneous case in capacity of the Karta of the joint family. After his brothers death, petitioner being the senior most member in the joint family, should have been substituted in his place as karta. I do not find much substance in this contention of petitioner specialalay for the reason that Petitioner is not in a position to say that the Misc. case was filed by Bishwanath Sah in representative capacity. It cannot be presumed that he had filed Misc. case in the 3 capacity of being Karta. If he had filed in that capacity even then after his death, not only the petitioners was required to be substituted as legal heir rather his direct legal heir were to be substituted. Since there was no application on their behalf, I do not find any error in the order passed by the Collector. So far other orders are concerned, I find that rejection order has been passed after holding proper enquiry. Finding recorded, while rejecting the claims for restoration of Jamabandi no.72 that, for the lands which were earlier under Jamabandi no.72 are concerned subsequently other Jamabandies were created. The enquiry report revealed that no lands were left for which Jamabandi no.72 should have continued. This finding was recorded after holding proper enquiry. There is no reason to go against this finding which is based on proper enquiry report. I do not find that there is any scope for interference with the order. This application is dismissed. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)