Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 45 (PAT)

Mukhtar Ansari v. State Of Bihar

2005-01-14

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the State and the counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 5 and 6. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 5.1.2001, passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran in Mutation Revision No. 229 of 1999-2000. By this order the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms dated 15.7.1999, passed in Appeal No. 10/98-99 and the order of the Anchal Adhikari dated 22.1.1998 passed in Mutation Case No. 756 to 771 of 1997-98 has been set aside. 3. The petitioners are the sons of Raja Mian. C.S. Plot No. 682, Khata No. 163 measuring an area of 2 Kathas 7 dhurs were recorded in the name of one Dukhi Jolha who died leaving behind his son Mahboob Mian. He transferred the aforesaid land in favour of Raza Mian, the father of the petitioners. He came in physical possession of the land and started cultivating the same. After the death of their father petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names with respect to the above mentioned lands. After notice to the parties, the Circle Officer, Narkatiyaganj by his order dated 22.1.1998 created jamaband in favour of the petitioners. On the basis of the sale deed of 1945 the respondents 5 and 6 preferred appeal against the order of Anchal Adhikari vide Appeal No. 10 of 1998-99 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Narkatiyaganj. The L.R.D.C. Narkatiyaganj after considering the documents produced by the parties, by his order dated 15.7.99 dismissed the appeal. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 preferred Mutation Revision before the Additional Collector, West Champaran vide Mutation Revision No. 229 of 1999 and the application by his order dated 5.1.2001, set well as the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. 4. The Petitioners have challenged the order of the Additional Collector in Mutation revision on the ground that under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 confers revisional power only on the Collector of District and the Addl. Collector has no power to hear and decide a revision petition. In the present case the revision application was preferred by the respondents before the Additional Collector as such the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of Shankar Shukla V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. [2000(3) P.L.J.R. 839]. 5. Counsel for the respondent nos. In the present case the revision application was preferred by the respondents before the Additional Collector as such the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of Shankar Shukla V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. [2000(3) P.L.J.R. 839]. 5. Counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 submitted that the facts of the present case is totally different from the facts of the case reported in 2000(3) P.L.J.R. 839. In the present case the Circle Officer passed an ex-parte order and against that appeal was preferred by the respondents which was dismissed by the appellate authority. In the reported decision the petitioners of the writ application itself had preferred revision, but in the present case the respondents were revisionist and the revision was allowed. It has also been submitted that no such objection relating to jurisdiction was raised by the petitioners before the revisional court. The petitioners willingly accepted the jurisdiction of revisional authority and contested the revision case before the Additional Collector as such they can not be permitted to raise any such objection in the writ application. I do not find this argument acceptable, even though the parties will be consenting party and they will submit themselves before the court which has no jurisdiction or which is not vested with the jurisdiction under the Act. In such case the order which has been passed by the court cannot be treated as the valid order. The order which is without jurisdiction, cannot be held to be legal and valid with the consent of the parties. The question of jurisdictional error can be raised, even in such cases. 6. Considering the fact that the revision application was filed before the Additional Collector which was not vested with the revisional jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the order dated 5.1.2001, passed by the Additional Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran in Mutation Revision Case No. 229 of 1999-2000 is hereby quashed. This matter cannot be remitted to the Collector for deciding it in accordance with law as the revision application was not filed before the Collector, West Champaran. The respondents had filed revision application before the Additional Collector. This matter cannot be remitted to the Collector for deciding it in accordance with law as the revision application was not filed before the Collector, West Champaran. The respondents had filed revision application before the Additional Collector. In such circumstances the respondents, if they so desire may file fresh revision application before the collector and the Collector will decide the matter in accordance with law. He will also consider the question of limitation while deciding the revision. Accordingly the writ application is allowed.