IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16376 of 2010 SMT.SUSHILA DEVI W/O- SADANAND RAI, R/O- VILLAGE ROARI, P.S.- SIKARPUR, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. SATYA NARAIN SINGH, S/O- LATE INAR SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE ROARI, P.S.- SHIKARPUR, DISTRIT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 6. JITENDRA KUMAR RAI, S/O- LATE BALIRAM RAI, R/O- VILLAGE JAMUNIA, P.S.- SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. For the petitioner : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kamal Kumar A.C. to S.C.-11 3 24.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is preemptor. He laid a claim with respect to a piece of land under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short the Act). Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer entertained the said application and by a proceeding dated 16.9.2004 allowed the same. Aggrieved thereby, private respondents (purchaser) preferred appeal being R.M. 41/2005- 06 (Satya Narayan Singh versus Sushila Devi and Ors). Respondent appellate authority by a proceeding dated 20.7.2005 (Annexure-4) disposed of the matter at the admission stage itself on the ground that the S.D.O. was not authorised in law to entertain application filed under Section 16(3) of the Act. Aggrieved over the said order, the preemptor (writ petitioner) preferred revision before the respondent Addl. Member, Board of Revenue vide Revision Case No. 209/2005. Revisional - 2 - authority by resolution dated 29.7.2010 found and held that the S.D.O. in view of different notifications issued by the government was authorised in law to exercise jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act. It has also been noted, as a fact, that during the relevant time, the Court of D.C.L.R. was defunct as the Presiding Officer was transferred. Having concluded that, the respondent Addl. Member, Board of Revenue disposed of the revision application in the following manner: “5 In view of discussions and legal position emerging in the preceding paragraphs the order passed by the learned District Collector, W. Champaran, Bettiah in L.C. Appeal case no. RM 41/2005-06 dated 05.07-2005 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Court of District Collector, W. Champaran, Bettiah for deciding the appeal on merits of other issues raised in appeal. This revision case no. 209 of 2005 is accordingly disposed off. “ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purchaser had not appeared before the revisional Court and as such the matter ought not to have been remanded back to the appellate authority. It is next contended that apart from the issue of jurisdiction, no other issue was raised before the appellate authority and as such the order of remand is not sustainable in law. Appellate forum is created to consider all issue(s) of fact and law. It may be possible that diverse submissions were made but the appellate authority at the admission stage itself picked up the jurisdictional issue and decided the same. Once - 3 - an appellate forum is created under the Act, the said authority has to consider all aspects of the matter relating to fact as well as law. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the matter has now been remitted back to the appellate authority for consideration of the case on merit, this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. The application is disposed of. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)