IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13188 of 2007 Jamuna Hajara @ Yamuna Hajara, son of Shri Ram Pujan Hajara, resident of Village- Semara Turahapatti, P.S.- Shanichari, District- West Champaran, Bettiah. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Main Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. Sheikh Noorulain, son of Sheikh Rafique, resident of Mohalla- Ganj No.2, P.O. & P.S.- Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran, Bettiah. .....Respondents. ----------- 02- 26.02.2009 Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur for the petitioner, and Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, learned assistant counsel to Standing Counsel no.18 for respondent nos.1 to 3. We have not felt the necessity of issuing notice to respondent no.4 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Commissioner of Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, in Rent Fixation Case No.101 of 2005 (Jamuna Hajara Vs. Shaikh Noorulian), whereby he has upheld the order dated 23.7.2005 (Annexure-2), passed by the 2 learned Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Revenue Appeal No.235 of 1999- 2000/94 of 2001-02 (Sheikh Noorulain Vs. Jamuna Hajara), whereby he has set aside the order of the learned first authority. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner seeks mutation of his name with respect to Plot no.2725, appertaining to Khata no.493, covering an area of 2 kathas 11 dhurs, and plot no.2717, appertaining to Khata no.493, covering an area of 2 kathas, situate at village- Semara Turhapatti, P.S. Sanichari, District- West Champaran, Bettiah. He had filed an application for mutation of the lands in question which was allowed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bettiah, by order dated 18.8.1994 (Annexure-3). Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.4 filed appeal before the learned Collector of the district of West Champaran, which was allowed by the said order dated 23.7.2005 (Annexure-2), that of the learned L.R.D.C. (Annexure-3) was set aside, and the land in question was directed to be mutated in the name of respondent no.4 herein. Aggrieved by this order, 3 the petitioner preferred revision application before the learned Commissioner, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned first authority was based on local inspection report of the learned Anchal Adhikari disclosing the petitioner’s possession, payment of rent evidenced by rent-receipts issued by the State of Bihar, as well as the relevant entries in the Khatian. In his submission, therefore, the learned Additional Collector as well as the learned Commissioner grievously erred in setting aside the order of the learned first authority. He also submits that in view of the provisions of Section-15 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the learned Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the learned Collector of the district. He also submits that he had preferred the second revision application before the learned Commissioner under mistaken legal advice and, therefore, was 4 not maintainable. He also submits that it is evident from a perusal of the local inspection report of the Anchal Adhikari that he is in peaceful cultivating possession of the land in question. 5. The learned Government Counsel submits that, as stated in paragraph 25 of the writ petition, T.S. No.239 of 1999, and T.S. 244 of 2002, are pending in the civil court at Bettiah. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the parties are already locked in two civil suits for declaration of right, title and interest with respect to the land in question. Therefore, the validity of the orders passed by the learned authorities under the Act shall be subject to adjudication in the suits. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 5