Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1-2-1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2866/83. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that one Kali Prasad Singh had three sons, namely, Benga Lal Singh, Jai Govind Singh and Atul Chandra Singh. There was a partition amongst the brothers by registered deed and Benga Lal Singh got 21.98 acres of land. He had four sons, namely, Shyama Pado Singh, Shanti Pado Singh, Barin Kumar Singh and Asim Kumar Singh. Shyama Pado Singh died during the pendency of writ petition leaving behind his widow Namita Singh, two sons, namely, Dilip Kumar Singh and Vidyut Kumar Singh and three daughters, namely, Shivani Rai, Bansani Singh and Indrani Singh. For better appreciation of the facts genealogical table is given here-in-blew:- Kali Prasad Singh (Jagirholder) | __________________________|________________________________ | | | | Baga Lal Singh Jai Govind Singh Atual Chandra Singh (Jagirholder) | ____|_______________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | Shyama Pado Shanti Pado Barin Kumar Asim Kumar Singh Singh Singh Singh | | | | Namita Singh (widow) | ________|________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | Dilip Kumar Bidyut Kumar Shivani Roy Benami Indrani Singh Singh Singh Singh 3 Benga Lal Singh was appointed sardar and he was given 36.06 acres as sardari jagir in lieu of service rendered to the land-lord. He was in possession of the said land at the time of vesting of zamindari. The said land did not vest as per the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and he became raiyat of sardari jagir on payment of rent. He was paying rent to the land-lord under receipt. In the year 1958 Shyama Pado Singh separated from his father and he got 12.13 1.2 acres of land which includes jagir land of Benga Lal Singh. Since then he was leaving separately from his father and brothers. There was also a registered partition in the year 1976 in between Benga Lal Singh and remaining three sons and they were living separately. 4. A land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Benga Lal Singh alleging that he got 21.89 acres of land in partition from his brothers and 36.06 acres sardari Jagir land i.e. 37.95 acres. There was also a registered partition in the year 1976 in between Benga Lal Singh and remaining three sons and they were living separately. 4. A land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Benga Lal Singh alleging that he got 21.89 acres of land in partition from his brothers and 36.06 acres sardari Jagir land i.e. 37.95 acres. The Anchal Adhikari Submitted as report that Benga Lal Singh had four sons and all were major and as such he was entitled to five units. However, the proceeding was decided holding that Benga Lal Singh had 12.95 acres surplus land. 5. Benga Lal Singh filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate authority held that Benga Lal Singh had no surplus land and accordingly ceiling proceeding was dropped. 6. Benga Lai Singh, thereafter, filed a mutation Case No. 46/1979-80 for mutation of his sons name separately;y. In the said proceeding notice was issued to 16 annas raiyats and enquiry was entrusted to the Circle Officer. The Circles Officer reported that there was partition between Benga Lal Singh and his sons. In the said partition Benga Lal Singh got 10.20 1/2 acres of land. Shanti Pado Singh got 11.60 1/2 acres, Barin Kumar Singh got 12.40 1/2 acres of land, Asim Kumar Singh got 11.60 acres and Shyama Pado Singh got 12.12 acres of land and they are in possession separately. On receipt of enquiry report the Sub-divisional Officer allowed the mutation case on 13-12-1979 and directed to mutate their names separately. 7. Benga Lal Singh died on 19-10-1980. After his death on 3-7-1981 shyama Pado Singh filed a revision bearing Revenue Misc. Case NQ. 20/81-82 before the Dsputy Commissioner against the order dated 12-12-1979 passed by the S.D.O. in Mutation case No. 46/79 admitting that he was separate from his brother and father since 1958 and also that notices were issued to sixteen anna raiyats, claiming that he was in possession of the entire 36.06 acres jagirdari land and also that he had no knowledge of mutation proceeding filed by his father Benga Lal Singh who died on 19-10-1980, he was not party to the proceeding and the S.D.O. had no authority to pass the order impugned. Sardari Jagir was impartible and cannot be partitioned. Sardari Jagir was impartible and cannot be partitioned. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 14-3-1983 allowed the revision case and remitted the matter to the S.D.O. Jamtara holding that sardari jagir is definitely an official holding and cannot be partitioned. The appellants against the said judgment and order fiied C.W.J.C. No. 2866/83. The writ petition was dismissed on 1-2-1994 holding that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order. 8. The undisputed facts are that Benga Lal singh got 21.89 acres land in partition from his brothers. He was appointed sardar under Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and was given 36.06 acres land as sardari Jagir. The said land did not vest at the time of vesting of zamindari under the Bihar Land Reforms Act as he was found in possession over the said lan and he became raiyat. In 1958 the eldest son Shyama Pado Singh separated from his father and he got 12.13 1/2 acres land in partition which included sardari jagir. He was living separately from his father since then. In 1976 by registered partition deed Benga Lal Singh and his remaining three sons separated and they were allotted land separately. The land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Benga Lal Singh alleging that he had 57.95 acres of land. In the said proceeding enquiry was made and it was reported that Benga Lal Singh and his sons were separate and they were holding separate land which included sardari Jagir land and as such ultimately the land ceiling proceeding was dropped holding that Benga Lal Singh had no surplus had no surplus land. Benga Lal Singh filed Mutation Case. No. 46/1979-80 and after enquiry it was found that Benga Lal Singh and his sons were separate and they were in possession of land separately as allotted in the partition. The Sub-divisional Officer allowed the mutation case and directed to mutate their names separately vide order dated 13-12-1979. Benga Lal Singh dies on 19-10-1980 and no appeal was filed by any of the sons during his life time. The Sub-divisional Officer allowed the mutation case and directed to mutate their names separately vide order dated 13-12-1979. Benga Lal Singh dies on 19-10-1980 and no appeal was filed by any of the sons during his life time. After more than one year the eldest son Shyama Pado Singh filed revision against the said order of mutation dated 13-12-1979 bearing Revision Case No. 20/1981-82 which was allowed on 14-3-1983 holding that sardari jagir is an official holding and cannot be partitioned and the case was remitted to the Sub-divisional Officer. The said order was challenged by the appellants in C.W.J.C. No. 2866/83. The said writ petition was dismissed on 1-2-1994 which was been impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the finding of the Deputy Commissioner affirmed by the learned single Judge that sardari jagir was an official holding and cannot be partitioned is not sustainable in law in view of the admitted facts as indicated above, whereas, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that sardari jagir is impartible and he being the eldest son is entitled to succeed the sardari jagir of his father, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents has got no force of law in view of the admitted facts as indicated above. In the instant case it is evident that the eldest son Shyama Pado Singh, the respondent, separated from his father in the year 1958 and he was allotted 12.13 1/2 acres of land which included sardari Jagir land and he was living separately. Further more, in 1976 the father himself executed a registered partition deed allotting share to his sons in the sardari jagir land which was acted upon and ceiling proceeding initiated against Benga Lal Singh was dropped as sons found major and in separate possession of the land which included sardari jagir of Benga Lal Singh. Even if it is taken that no one can claim share in sardari jagir but there is no bar under the law to the holder of sardari Jagir to give share to his sons. The partition deed is in fact a wish of Benga Lal Singh, the holder of sardari jagir, to give share to his sons and the said wish has been acted upon. The partition deed is in fact a wish of Benga Lal Singh, the holder of sardari jagir, to give share to his sons and the said wish has been acted upon. Thus, submission of learned Counsel for the appellants, in my view, has got force and finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that sardari jagir is an official holding and impartible in the facts and circumstances of the present case is without any foundation and cannot be upheld. 10. Learned Counsel fro the appellants pointed out that Revision Case No. 20/ 1981-82 filed by Shyama Pado Singh was barred by limitation in view of Section 64 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act but the revisional authority without condoning the delay allowed the revision. Admittedly no appeal was filled against the order dated 13-12-1979 passed in Mutation Case No. 46/1979-80. Benga Lal Singh, father of Shyama Pado Singh died on 19-10-1980. The aforesaid revision was filed in the year 1981 much after one year of passing of the order in mutation case on 13-12-1979. sec. 59 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act does not say about the limitation but sec. 64 of the Act says that all applications made under this Act, for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Act, shall be made within one year from the date of the accruing of the cause of action. Therefore, the revision was to be filed within one year from the date of order passed in the mutation case. The revision application was filed much after the expiry of one year but there is nothing on the record to show that limitation in filing revision was condoned by the revisional authority and as such the revision application was also barred by limitation. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contended that they were neither made party in mutation case nor they had knowledge about it. It had been admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in mutation case notices were issued to sixteen annas raiyats. Therefore, it became obvious that respondents were also noticed but they did not appear in the mutation proceeding to oppose the mutation. Further more, mutation was made on the basis of registered partition deed executed by Benga Lal Singh, the holder of sardari jagir indicating the intention to give share in sardari jagir. Therefore, it became obvious that respondents were also noticed but they did not appear in the mutation proceeding to oppose the mutation. Further more, mutation was made on the basis of registered partition deed executed by Benga Lal Singh, the holder of sardari jagir indicating the intention to give share in sardari jagir. The said partition was acted upon in the ceiling proceeding and the proceeding was dropped but he never opposed the partition in the ceiling proceeding. He himself got share in the sardari jagir in the year 1958 itself and as such he cannot be allowed to raise any objection. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, it is evident that there is no fierce in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondents. 12. Thus oh consideration, as discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Singh judge is hereby quashed. Consequently, the judgment and order of the Deputy Commissioner, Annexure 6 is also quashed but without cot. Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. I agree.