IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2986 of 2008 1.GHANSHYAM PRASAD SINGH son of Late Jagdish Singh 2.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh son of late Jagdish Singh 3.Dr.Purushottam Prasad Ssingh S/o Late Jagdish Singh 4.Dr.Mahamaya Prasad Singh S/o Late Jagdish Singh 5.Matirka Prasad Singh S/o Late Jagdish Singh 6.Badshah Prasad Singh S/o Latge Jagdish Singh All residents of Village Nethua P.O.Awari P.S.Marhawrrah,District Saran Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Commissioner,Saran Division,Chapra 3.The Additional Collector,Saran,Chapra 4.The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, MarhawrrahDist. Saran 5.Smt.Kamlawati Devi wife of Ugam Manjhi 6.Parvati Devi wife of Gorakh Manjhi Both residents of Village Nethua P.O. Awari P.S.Marhawrrah,District Saran. ----------- 2 31.3.2009. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by Commissioner,Saran Division,Chapra in Pre-emption Revision case no.451 of 2007. The revision was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Further prayer is for quashing the order dated 31.7.2007 passed by Additional Collector, Saran, Chapra in Land Ceiling Appeal no.1 of 2006. The appellate order was passed by the Additional Collector reversing the order dated 23.12.2005 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Marhawrrah in Land Ceiling Case no.11 of 2005-06. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had allowed the pre-emption application filed by the petitioners who are pre-emptors. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra has committed an error of jurisdiction by dismissing the revision application ignoring the amendment brough in Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms 2 (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Amendment Act 2006. While notification published in Bihar Gazette Extra Ordinary dated 4.5.2006, the revisional jurisdiction against the order passed by the Collector or Additional Collector under Section 16(3) has now been vested in the Divisional Commissioner. This amendment brought under Section 16(3) do not provide any time limit for preferring a revision against the order passed by the Collector or the Additional Collector. In terms of amended provision, revision was filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Saran Division, it should have been decided on merit, but dismissed on the point of limitation even though no limitation is prescribed under the amende3d provisions for filing any revision. On perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the merit of the case has not been considered. Accordingly the impugned order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Pre-emption Revision case no.451 of 2007 is quashed. This matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Saran Division Chapra for reconsideration of the revision application in terms of the amended provisions and for passing the order on merit. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)