IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10257 of 2010 Satya Narayan Thakur, son of Late Raghunath Thakur, village Shambhoo Ram Tola @ Phulhatta, PS Chak Mahshi, District Samastipur – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Additional Collector, Samastipur. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, samastipur. 4. Anchal Adhikari, Kalyanpur Block, Samastipur. 5. Smt. Pratibha devi, wife of Vinay Kumar Thakur, 6. Ashok Kumar Thakur, 7. Navin Kumar Thakur, both sons of Sri Jagdish Thakur, All of Shambhoo Ram Tola @ Phulhatta, PS Chak Mehshi, Dist. Samastipur – Respondents. 2 7.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This case arises out of revisional order, dated 4.2.2009 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 1/2007/85/2008 under section 16 of the Bihar Tenancy Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Ordinarily this court should have issued notice to the private respondents in this case. However, considering the fact that it is purely a question of law and the matter has been settled by a division bench decision of this court in the case of Kapildeo Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2003 (2) PLJR 431, it would be waste of time and no useful purpose would be served in issuing notice. The aforesaid decision lays down that section 16 of the Act shows that the words used is not Collector as defined under section 2© of the Act but it provides that a revision would lie before the Collector of the district. The legislature with clear intention has provided this power to be exercised by the Collector of the district itself and not any other authority. 2 In view of the aforesaid finding of the division bench, this matter is remanded back to the Collector, Samastipur to issue notice to the parties and hear the revision application afresh. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)