Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1702 (PAT)

Sadanand Yadav v. State of Bihar

2007-11-01

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, State as well as respondents. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.11.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 22 of 2002 whereby the Additional Collector, Supaul Camp Court, has entertained the revision application filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by the D.C.L.R. in Mutation Appeal No. 33 of 2002-03, 3. The point for consideration in present case is that whether Additional Collector can exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 only the Collector of the district has been vested with the revisional power. This power cannot be exercised by the Additional Collector, although he may be treated as Collector under the Act. 4. Counsel for the respondent has submitted, in fact the petition filed by the respondents was treated as a Miscellaneous application and not revision application filed under Section 16 of the Act. Respondents filed an application for transferring the mutation matter in the Court of D.C.L.R. as such the order passed cannot be treated as an order passed in exercise of jurisdiction under section 16 of the Act. The submission which has been made by the counsel appearing for the respondent is not convincing for the reasons that by the impugned order the Additional Collector, Supaul has set aside the order passed by the D.C.L.R. in Mutation Appeal No, 33 of 2002-03. Even if the application has been registered as Misc. Application, the effect of the order will be that by it the order passed by the appellate authority has been quashed which can be done only under revisional jurisdiction, only in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the order passed by the appellate authority can be set aside. Since the Additional Collector has not been vested with the power under section 16 of the Act in this view the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such it is quashed. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the Title Suit with respect to the land in question is pending between the parties, only the competent Civil Court can decide the right, title and possession of the party. 6. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that the Title Suit with respect to the land in question is pending between the parties, only the competent Civil Court can decide the right, title and possession of the party. 6. Without going into this I set aside the order for the reasons that the final order passed in the title suit or appeal will certainly have the effect in mutation, but at present the order passed by the D.C.L.R. can be treated as final, if it is not challenged by filing revision before the appropriate forum.