IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17099 of 2011 Sudarshan Mahto Son of Ram Bachan Mahto, resident of village and P.O. Teknewas, Police Station Revelganj, District Saran … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Saran, Chapra, 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Chapra, Sadar Sub-division, Chapra, District Saran, … Respondents Ist Set 4. Malti Devi wife of Shivanand Tiwary, 5. Triloki Tiwary, 6. Krishna Tiwary, Both sons of late Bishwanath Tiwary, … Respondents 2nd Set. Pramod Kumar Upadhyay son of late Kamaldeo Upadhyay, resident of village Mangolaapur, P.S. Jalalpur, District Saran, At present resident of village and P.O. Teknewas, Police Station Revelganj, District Saran … Respondent 3rd Set For the Petitioner: Mr. Nagendra Rai, Advocate For the State: Mr. AC to AAG 6 … 2 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Collector, Saran, respondent no. 2, in Jamabandi Correction Appeal No. 3/2005, whereby the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Saran, respondent no. 3 in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 2/05-06 on 21.12.2005 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. 2 Petitioner claims correction of Jamabandi on the strength of a registered sale deed executed in his favour in the year 2005 in place of the persons, i.e., respondent nos. 4 to 6, in whose names the earlier Jamabandi had been created in the year 1995 on the basis of the sale deed executed in their favour as early as in 1990 itself. The Collector, Saran, has held that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, for passing an order in favour of the petitioner, the earlier mutation order creating Jamabandi passed in the year 1995 would have to be cancelled and for that the sale deed, that was basis of earlier order, would have to be declared as void or inoperative. Since the same was not within the jurisdiction of the authorities, the prayer of the petitioner was refused. This Court does not find any error in such finding recorded by the Collector, respondent no. 2 as the aforesaid decision that would affect the right, title and interest of the parties can only be taken by an appropriate forum and it is well settled that merely an entry in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes right, title and interest. Learned counsel next contends that the 3 petitioner had wrongly filed the appeal before the Collector but the same was not maintainable as the Collector of the district can only entertain a revision filed under section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) whereas the appeal is maintainable before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order being without jurisdiction has to go. For better appreciation, the relevant provision, i.e., section 16 of the Act is quoted as under:- “S. 16. Revision.--The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit: Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order: 4 Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it appears that the Collector of the district has been empowered to satisfy himself regarding legality or propriety of any order or call for and examine any record pending before an authority in a proceeding under the Act. Therefore, merely labeling the case as an appeal would not mean that the Collector has passed this order beyond his jurisdiction as he has got the power to call for the records of any case pending or disposed of and examine its correctness. It appears that the Collector has exercised the power under section 16 of the Act on an application filed on behalf of the petitioner. In above view of the matter, this writ application does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result, this writ application is dismissed. 5 However, this order would not come in way of the petitioner in approaching any appropriate forum provided under law for declaration of his right, title and interest. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)