IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.382 of 2009 1. CHANDRA BHUSAN AGRAWAL 2. CHANDRAMAULI AGRAWAL 3. CHANDRA BIBHUTI AGRAWAL 4. DR.CHANDRA SHEKHAR AGRAWAL . All sons of Late Dr. Shiv Nandan Prasad Agrawal and permanent residents of village+P.O. and P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur……..Petitioners/appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner, Darbhanga Division. 3. Additional Collector, Samastipur. 4. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Samastipur. 5. Circle Officer, Pusa, Samastipur. 6. Md.Yunus son of late Md. Yusuf. 7. Md. Murad son of Md. Yunus. 8. Md.Javed son of Md. Yunus, all residents of village-Gaddopur, P.O.Manpura, P.S.Bangra, Distt- Samastipur……….Respondents/respondents. For the appellants:- Mr. L.N. Das, Adv Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv For the respondents:-Mr.Chintranjan Sinha, Sr.Adv Mr. Abbas Haider, Adv. ----------- 4. 16-Jul-09 Heard the parties. 2. The grievance of the appellants is that learned DCLR, Samastipur wrongly accepted service report in respect of notices to the appellants and decided the Jamabandi Correction Case No.1/2001- 2002 ex parte against them. Further grievance of the appellants is that the appellate authority did not consider the plea that service of notice was not valid and the revisional authority, the Commissioner declined to enter into merits of the case or to 2 examine the issue of valid notice on account of lack of jurisdiction due to cancellation of revisional power given to the Commissioner by amendment of Section 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Jamabandi in favour of the petitioners is an old one and is traceable to Jamabandi created in the year 1902 when the grand-father of the appellants purchased the property in an auction sale. The claim of the private respondents is base upon continuous possession on account of being heirs of the original recorded tenant prior to auction sale of 1902 and on the basis of an oral gift. Some judgments of this Court including one in the case of Khiru Gope reported in AIR 1983, Patna 121 (DB) were relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to submit that DCLR could not have exercised jurisdiction, in the facts of the case, to cancel the old Jamabandi only 3 on the ground that some petty official claimed to find the possession of respondents over the land concerned. 4. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that an entry in the revenue records including Jamabandi merely indicates the person who is found liable to pay rent on account of possession and a Division bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Chaubey Vs. the State of Bihar, 1993(2) PLJR 255 has discussed the earlier judgments of this Court and has held that an administrative order of mutation passed by the revenue authorities is not and cannot be a decision on the question of title because such decision can only be taken by a Civil Court in a duly constituted Civil Suit. 5. A perusal of that judgment shows that since the subsequent entry in Register-II was made in favour of State of Bihar in course of the revisional survey settlement of 1970, the Division bench took the view that although cancellation of Jamabandi 4 cannot amount to cancellation of settlement, there is a strong presumption of correctness of entries made in the survey settlement records of right although the presumption is rebuttable under the provisions of the B.T. Act. 6. A writ Court declining to go into the controversies relating to title and possession is a usual feature because the remedy of preferring title suit by the aggrieved person is always available in the ultimate course. However, settled rights and title through continuous entries in the record of rights cannot be easily undone by revenue authorities unless very cogent and good reasons are available. It is in background of such established principle that at times, in the facts of the case, as in the case of Khiru Gope (supra) it has been held that revenue authorities had virtually no jurisdiction in the matter. 7. Rule of law and public policy also warrant that complicated issues which have direct effect upon title of the parties should not be decided 5 by the revenue authorities. Though a mere finding of possession may not amount to deciding the issue of title but it may have direct bearing upon the title of person who is affected by such a finding of possession by a revenue employee. Hence, now such matters are governed by statutory provisions of the Act. 8. On going through the provisions of the Act, it is noticed that under Section 17 thereof, power of revision is vested in the Collector of the District in respect of any order made under that Act by any authority or officer. The subsequent amendment in respect of power of the Commissioner under Section 17 of the Act does not affect the revisional power of the Collector of a District. 9. In the present case, since the order of original authority is ex parte, interest of justice also requires that the issue whether service of notice was valid or not and whether report regarding possession is in accordance with law, must be decided by some higher authority under the Act. In that view of the 6 matter and in view of the provision under Section 16 vesting power of revision in the Collector of District, the matter is remitted back to the Collector of the District who shall decide the dispute raised by the appellants on merits in accordance with law if a revision petition challenging the orders passed by DCLR, Samastipur and the appellate authority is preferred within 30 days from the date of this order along with a copy of this order. The order under appeal passed by the writ Court is modified to that extent. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash,J.)