IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8101 of 2003 KAMESHWAR YADAV, son of Late Khuni Gope, resident of Village – Tahkar, P.O. – Charka Pathal, P.S. Sono , District – Jamui …………………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Patna, 2. The Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger, 3. The Addl. Collector, Jamui, 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui, 5. The Circle Officer, Sono, Dist. – Jamui and 6. Hari Gope, Son of Late Khiru Yadav, resident of Village – Tahkar, P.O. – Charka Pathal, P.S. Sono, Distt. – Jamui …………….. Respondents. ----------- 3. 18.08.2009. Heard Mr. Arjun Prasad Keshari, learned counsel for the petitioner. State is represented by Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, S.C. V. Mr. Chandra Mauli Prasad Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent no. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a short question with regard to maintainability of appeal / revision before the Addl. Collector, Jamui, Respondent No. 3, who had passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2002 in Misc. Appeal No. 02/2001-02 (Annexure- 6) and the subsequent order dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, Respondent No. 2 in Jamui Revenue Misc. Revision No. 29/2001-2002 (Annexure-7). 2 It had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner was not competent to entertain and dispose of the Revision under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) as the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that only the Collector of the District had been empowered to exercise revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon two cases decided by this Court in Dulari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2005(2) PLJR 688 as well as Shiv Nandan Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2008 (1) PLJR 772. In Dulari Devi (supra) it has been decided by this Court that the Revision under the Act lies only before the Collector of the District and, thus, the order passed by Addl. Collector in exercise of such power was held to be without jurisdiction. In Shiv Nandan Yadav (supra) a Bench of this Court has held that even the Commissioner of the District cannot exercise revisional power under the Act as the same is available only to the Collector of the 3 District. This Court had an occasion to decide similar issue in Indradeo Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 3927/2002, disposed of on 23.06.2009). In the aforesaid decision, this Court, relying upon a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Kapildeo Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2003 (2) PLJR 431, had held that the Addl. Collector concerned acted beyond jurisdiction in deciding the Revision under the Act as the Collector under the Act has only been empowered to entertain Revision under Section 16 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he had got a very good case on merit, but he could not lay hand upon any decision of Court or provision of law in answer to the aforesaid short question raised on behalf of the petitioner. However, it was submitted that not only the order of the Divisional Commissioner, rather the orders passed by the Addl. Collector and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms as well as the Anchal Adhikari were also bad for the reason that the Anchal Adhikari, in place of deciding the matter 4 himself in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 14 of the Act, had referred the matter to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms for taking a decision. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms concerned, who under Section 15 of the Act was empowered to hear and dispose of the Appeal against the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, had passed the order in original and thereafter the Addl. Collector, who did not have any authority to hear the Appeal, had heard and decided the same. Learned counsel appearing for the State had also admitted that the orders passed are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the same suffer from the defects as pointed out by the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that this writ application can be disposed of on the aforesaid questions only. As has been held in the cases mentioned above, the Divisional Commissioner is not vested with the power to hear and decide the Revision and, therefore, the order as contained in Annexure-7 is declared as 5 having been passed without jurisdiction. Similarly, the Addl. Collector and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms as well as the Anchal Adhikari have also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as has been admitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of petitioner and the State. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5, 6 & 7 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Anchal Adhikari concerned to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )