IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11840 of 2003 BHUVANESHWAR PRASAD SINGH @ BHUVANESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE AJAB LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KENDUWAR, POLICE STATION-AMARPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BANKA. 4. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, BANKA. 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, AMARPUR, DIST. BANKA. 6. SMT. PRAMILA DEVI, WIFE OF HARIDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF KENDUWAR, P.S. AMARPUR, DIST. BANKA. ………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate & Om Prakash Singh, Advocate. For the State : M/s. Binod Kumar & Anwar Karim, A.Cs. to S.C.V. For Respondent No.6: Mr. Amarendra Nath Tiwary, Advocate. ------------ 3. 1.9.2009. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 appears and files counter affidavit. Let it be kept on record. This application is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, in Banka Revenue (Mutation) Revision Case No.14/97-98. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner had filed the application for mutation of the lands appertaining to khata no.157/9, khesra no.387/97 measuring an area of 1.98 acres, khata no.151/19, khesra no.607/508 measuring an area of 0.9 - 2 - acres, khata no.258/46 kha, khesra no.363/336 measuring an area of 0.45, in total measuring an area of 2.52 acres, before the Circle Officer, Amarpur which was numbered as Mutation Case No. 134/1989-90. The aforesaid Mutation Case was allowed by the Anchal Adhikari, Amarpur on 6.1.1990 vide Annexure-„2‟. The Respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Banka vide Mutation Appeal No.27/90-91 which was allowed after setting aside the order as aforesaid, passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Amarpur and a direction was given for the mutation of the name of the Respondent No.6. The petitioner thereafter filed Revision before the Collector, Banka which was allowed in his favour on the basis that since the order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner, the Revenue Authority had to follow the same. The Respondent No.6 filed second Revision before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division challenging the aforesaid revisional order which was numbered as Banka Revenue (Mutation) Revision Case No.14/97-98. The aforesaid second revision was allowed on the basis that in an appeal preferred by the petitioner (herein) the rights of Respondent No.6 had been upheld by the Assistant Director (Consolidation) concerned and the Revenue Authorities would have to follow the final decision of the Consolidation Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, is without jurisdiction. - 3 - The learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 has filed counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 submitted that the order passed by the Collector concerned is illegal since the Collector has only considered the earlier order passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner whereas subsequently order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.39/89-90 holding therein that the Respondent No.6 is the daughter of Late Harideo Singh. Thereafter, she filed a petition seeking permission for the transfer of certain land which was allowed and the same was challenged by this petitioner in Appeal No.14/91-92. The Additional Director, Consolidation, after hearing the parties has dismissed the appeal by an order dated 29.6.1992 as contained in Annexure-„4/A‟ of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.6. It is submitted that there is complete non consideration of these subsequent facts by the Collector concerned which had been considered by the Respondent No.2, the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur in the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the State fairly admits that as per the law laid down by this Court, the second revision would not be available to the Respondent No.6. Having heard the rival submissions on behalf of the parties, I am of the opinion that the second revision would not be available to the Respondent No.6. Admittedly, the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was enforced in the entire State of Bihar by a Notification dated 8th of January, 1991 to be - 4 - effective from 18th of January, 1991. A full Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in Ram Chandra Ram and others Vs. Commissioner, North Chotanagpur and others, reported in 1986 BBCJ 634, had held that the second revision would not be maintainable in the mutation proceedings after the repeal of Section 17 of the Act in all areas where the Act had been duly extended or enforced. The Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 25.6.2003 in the second revision after the provisions of the Act were extended and enforced in the whole State of Bihar and, thus, as per the law laid down in Ram Chandra Ram‟s case (supra) the aforesaid order, in my opinion, is without jurisdiction and is ,thus, set aside. However, it is also apparent from the pleadings of the parties and reading of the order passed by the Collector, as contained in Annexure-„4‟ that subsequent orders of the Consolidation Authorities as contained in Annexures-„3/A‟ and „4/A‟ of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.6, have not been taken into consideration. In view of the above, the order passed by the Respondent No.3 also cannot be sustained in law and, thus, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.3, the Collector, Banka, to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parties and giving them opportunity to file documents in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J) - 5 -