JUDGMENT S. K. Singh, J.-The present application has been filed for quashing an order of the Collector, Bhagalpur dated 4.4.83 (Annexure-2) in Misc. Case No. 8/82-83 by which the Collector after prima facie holding that there has been incorrect entry in the record of right, had ordered the matter to be disposed of on merit under section 108 (A) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'B. T. Act'). 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the Revisional Survey operation under the B. T. Act, 1885 was started in Mouza Tintanga, Thana no. 47 Touzi No. 346 in the District of Bhagalpur some time in the year 1970 and after fulfilling all the legal formalities, the final publication of record of right of the said Mouza Tintanga, was made on 24.1.78. The said record of right though finally published on 24.1.1978, it was signed on 27.1.1978. In the aforesaid operation Khata No. 3257 bearing Survey plot Nos. 10967, 10968, 10969, 10971, 10972, 10973 and 10974 of the said Mouza was jointly recorded in the names of Surendra Nath Choudhary and Shri Harendra Nath Choudhary, both sons of late Sitesh Nath Choudhary. The present petitioner, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary is the son of Surendra Nath Choudhary. During the survey operation, no one filed objection regarding any entry made in the name of Surendra Nath Choudhary and Harendra Nath Choudhary as mentioned above. Even after final publication, no objection was filed under section 106 of the B. T. Act during the stipulated period of three months. All of a sudden on 13.4.1982, the State of Bihar filed a Misc. Case before the Collector, Bhagalpur under section 108 A of the B. T. Act against the. entry made in the record of right in the names of Surendra Nath Choudhary and Harendra Nath Choudhary praying that the record of right finally published on 24.1.78 be corrected and the names of Surendra Nath Choudhary and Harendra Nath Choudhary be deleted from Khata No. 3257 (new) of Mouza Tintanga and to enter the name of the Stale of Bihar in their place with respect to lands mentioned in Khata no. 3257 (new). At the time of filing of Misc. 3257 (new). At the time of filing of Misc. Case No. 8/82-83, Sri Surendra Nath Choudhary was dead and, as such, his two sons, Arvind Kumar and Rabindra Kumar Choudhary (petitioner) along with Sri Harendra Nath Choudhary were made party in the said Misc. Case. On 10.8.82, the petitioner along with others opposite filed preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the petition filed under section 108A of the B. T. Act. The Collector, Bhagalpur, who is authorised to file cases on behalf of the State of Bihar, himself heard the preliminary objection on 4.4.83 and without giving any reason in an arbitrary manner is alleged to have ordered to hear the matter on merit under section 108A of the B. T. Act. A copy of the order dated. 4.4.83 passed by the Collector is annexed as Annexure-2. 3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.4.83 (Annexure-2) passed by the Collector on the ground that the State of Bihar had not filed any objection under section 106 of the B. T. Act, they have no remedy left than to take recourse before the competent Civil Court is further stated that the effect of the present Misc. Case will virtually amount to challenge the whole process of the Survey operation. As such, preparation of Khata was already made, recorded and finally published in the names of Surendra Nath Choudhary for which the proper remedy was to file a case under section 106 of the B. T. Act. It has further been submitted that under section 108 A. of the B. T. Act only certain clerical mistakes can be corrected and complete process of survey cannot be annulled under the said Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that section 108 A of the B. T. Act has not been inserted to make section 106 of the Act as redundant. As the State of Bihar had remedy under section 106 of the B.T. Act, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Collector under section 108 A of the Act, which has been introduced for the limited purpose of correcting a bona fide or material error in the record of right. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rules 89 and 89A under the B.T. Act. Rule 89 reads as follows :- "89. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rules 89 and 89A under the B.T. Act. Rule 89 reads as follows :- "89. Application for correction of errors.-Application for the correction of bona fide (or material error) in the record of rights after its final publication under Rule 79, where such applications bear on the body of them the admission of the party or parties affected, shall be received and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 108A. If the Revenue Officer receiving the application has not been especially empowered under the section he shall forward the application for disposal with his report thereon to the Revenue Officer so empowered. The court-fee payable on such applications shall be (twelve annas)". 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has fairly conceded that the petition filed by the State before the Collector is for the correction of the record of rights and not a typographical error. As such, the remedy available before the State was under section 106 of the B.T. Act and not under section 108 A of the B. T. Act, which is for a limited purpose. 7. For the reasons stated above in my view as the State had not moved against the final publication of the record of rights, which was published on 24.1.78 and signed on 27.1.78 within three months from that date under section 106 of the B. T. Act as such, now the only remedy left to the State is to take recourse before the Competent Civil Court. For the reasons as stated above the order of the Collector, Bhagalpur, dated 4.4.83 (Annexure-2) passed in Misc. Case No. 8/82-83 is quashed. 8. In the result, this application succeeds and is allowed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.