IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9869 of 2010 BIJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE SHIV PRASAD RAI, RESIDENT OF SAGUNA, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SANT SARAN GOSWAMI, SON OF LATE PALTU GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF SAGUNA, BAILEY ROAD, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PATNA 4. THE D.C.L.R., DANAPUR, PATNA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DANAPUR, PATNA. 6. KUSUM DEVI, WIFE OF SHANKAR RAI, RESIDENT OF DANAPUR KHAGAUL ROAD, NEAR SAGUNA MORE, P.O. & P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Abhay Bhushan Sinha, Advocate For Res. No. 6 :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Ms. G. Nisha, A.C. to A.A.G. 7. ----------- 4 3.11.2010 This writ application is being disposed of on a short point that the order impugned has been passed by the Additional Collector, Patna exercising powers under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act). Section 16 of the Act specifically states as follows: “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 of record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit:” The Collector has transferred the matter back to the Additional Collector to hear 2 the revision application. The said transfer apparently was made on the basis of a notification issued by the State Government giving the power to the Collector to delegate matters pending before him to the Additional Collector. There are decisions of this Court reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 404 (Most. Babuni Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) and a decision reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 688 (Dulari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) which have interpreted Section 16 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is apparent that the Collector did not have the power to transfer the revision application to the Additional Collector to be heard by him. I may point out at this juncture that the word Collector has been used in Section 7 as well as Section 8 of the aforesaid Act. Section 7 indicates that “the Collector or the Court, as the case may be, making the award under the Act, shall give notice of the fact in the prescribed form to the Anchal Adhikari of the area in whose jurisdiction the land is situated.” Again in Section 8, it has been specifically noted that “the Collector shall also give notice in the prescribed form to the 3 Anchal Adhikari of the area in whose jurisdiction the land is situated”. Under Section 8, the Collector has been given powers to notice certain events. The definition of the term Collector under Section 2C states as follows: That “Collector” includes an Additional Collector, an Additional Deputy Commissioner and any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act: The definition of the Collector viz a viz the powers to the Collector under Sections 6 and 7 differ from powers as given under Section 16 of the Act. It is specifically stated that the „Collector of the District‟ would hear revisions, filed against orders passed by other officers, authorities hearing matters under this Act. Therefore, the legislature has made a distinction between the word „Collector of the District‟ and the word „Collector‟ as used by defining the Collector under Section 2C of the Act. The term Collector of the District, in other Sections of this Act, has been used without any adjective or prefix. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the matter could only 4 have been heard by the Collector of the District. It has been argued on behalf of the State, that the Government has recently issued a notification empowering the Additional Collector to perform the duties of the Collector. The notification so issued has to be read in context with the provisions of the Act as far as it refers to the power of the Collector to hear matters or to perform certain acts under this Act and would not include Section 16 of the Act. In the circumstances, I quash the order dated 4.4.2008, passed by the D.C.L.R., Danapur and remand the matter back to the Collector to hear the Revision Application No. 6 of 2000-01. It is obvious that the Collector have to pass an appropriate order after hearing both the parties. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)