Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 6. 2. This application arises out of a proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. It may be clarified at the out set that there can be no dispute that this case arises out of the provisions of the aforesaid Act inasmuch as the proceeding in question commenced in the year 1994 whereas on 18.1.1991 the Act was made applicable to all the districts/Anchals in the State. 3. Respondent no. 6 made an application for mutation before the Anchal Adhikari in respect of the lands of different khata. His claim was rejected in part. So far as the land in respect of which the claim for mutation raised by respondent no. 6 was allowed by the original authority is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance. Respondent no. 6 preferred an appeal against the order of the original authority in so far as his claim for some lands was rejected. The appeal preferred before the Dy. Collector Land Reforms was also rejected. The respondent no. 6 went in revision and the Addl. Collector by order dated 11.5.1994 (copy at Annexure 3) allowed his revision application. 4. The petitioner challenges the revisional order primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. It is submitted that the power of revision under Section 16 of the Act has been conferred on the Collector of the District and that is capable of only one meaning and that does not include Additional Collector or a Deputy Collector etc. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent tries to defend the order with reference to the definition of Collector under Section 2(c) of the Act. In my opinion, the objection raised by the petitioner is indefencible inasmuch as the distinction between the Collector under the Act, that is to say, as defined in the definition clause of the Act and the Collector of the district is well established and there is no scope of any controversy on that score. I, thus, find substance in the petitioner's submission that the impugned order having been passed by the Addl. Collector Buxar is without jurisdiction and ultra vires Section 16 of the Act. The impugned order dated 11.5.1994 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Buxar for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. I, thus, find substance in the petitioner's submission that the impugned order having been passed by the Addl. Collector Buxar is without jurisdiction and ultra vires Section 16 of the Act. The impugned order dated 11.5.1994 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Buxar for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 6. In the result, this application is allowed.