Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-5 dated 20.4.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, allowing the appeal filed by Khirodhar Mahto i.e. respondent no.6 and others against the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaaribagh, in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995-96 dated 13.06.1998. The order contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh dated 11.2.2002 is also under challenge in this writ application, whereby the Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector contained in Annexure-5 and dismissed the revision filed by the present writ petitioners. 3. Without going into the details of the facts of the case, suffice is to say that the disputed land appertains to portions of khata nos.31, 41, 42,44 and 45 and the writ petitioners claim the same on the basis of purchase by registered deed. According to them the aforesaid lands were settled in the year 1925 by the ex-land lord and they also purchased land of Khewat no. 15/4 plot nos. 11,227,292,295 and 304 area 2.85 Acres by registered deed of sale in the year 1934. Subsequently on 21.11.1980 plot nos. 309 and 56 of khata nos. 44 and 45 area 0.48 decimals were also purchased by registered deed of sale. 4. On the other hand, the claims of the private respondents are that Khewat nos. 15/1, 15/2, 15/3 were prepared in the names of their ancestors and their names were also recorded in the cadastral survey records of right. They were coming in possession of the lands in question since the life time of their ancestors. 5. It appears that an application for fixation of rent with respect to the lands in question was filed by Khirodhar Mahto and others i.e. private respondents herein, before the Circle Officer, Ichak, in the year 1995, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 36 of 1994-95. 5. It appears that an application for fixation of rent with respect to the lands in question was filed by Khirodhar Mahto and others i.e. private respondents herein, before the Circle Officer, Ichak, in the year 1995, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 36 of 1994-95. The Circle Officer, Ichak by his order dated 3.5.1995, after considering the claims of both the parties, rejected the prayer of the claimants/ private respondents herein, on the ground that their names were recorded in the record of right on the basis of Thikha taken by their ancestors from the ex-land lord for a fixed period of 18 years and after expiry of the said period of 18 years the land under Thikha were taken back by the ex-land lord and thereafter the same were settled and sold with the opposite parties i.e. the writ petitioners herein. 6. The private respondents therafter filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, against the said order of the Circle Officer, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995-96. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, by his detailed order dated 13.6.1998 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Circle Officer, by observing that if so advised, the applicants may approach the competent Court of Civil Court. Against this order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, private respondents Khirodhar Mahto and others filed a revision before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Misc. Revision No. 3 of 1998. 7. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, by his order dated 20.4.2001, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, allowed the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Annexure-4) as well as the Circle Officer, Ichak. Thereafter, it appears that these writ petitioners preferred a revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Zamabandi Cancellation Revision No. 42 of 2001. The Commissioner by the impugned order dated 11.2.2002 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has dismissed the revision application filed by the writ petitioners. 8. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. Thereafter, it appears that these writ petitioners preferred a revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Zamabandi Cancellation Revision No. 42 of 2001. The Commissioner by the impugned order dated 11.2.2002 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has dismissed the revision application filed by the writ petitioners. 8. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioners have raised various points to challenge the orders passed by the Additional Collector dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure-5) as well as the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, dated 11.2.2002 (Annexure-6) including the points of jurisdiction of Additional Collector in entertaining the revision application filed by the private respondents herein against the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. 9. He submitted that under section 16 read with section 2 (c) of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 the statutory power of appeal or revision has been conferred only upon the Collector of the District i.e. to the Commissioner. Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 provides that the power of revision has to be exercised by the Collector of District and collector of the district has been defined under section 2 (c) of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. An Additional Collector cannot act as the Collector of the District to exercise the power of revision unless by specific notification the Additional Collector is specifically authorized to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector of the district. In support of his submission he relied on a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Kapildeo Singh & others Vs. The State of Bihar & others, reported in 2003 (2) PLJR page 431. 10. On the other hand learned J.C. to G.P. II as well as Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents have argued that the Collector of the District includes the Additional Collector and as such an Additional Collector also has the jurisdiction to exercise the Revisional power. 11. 10. On the other hand learned J.C. to G.P. II as well as Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents have argued that the Collector of the District includes the Additional Collector and as such an Additional Collector also has the jurisdiction to exercise the Revisional power. 11. Patna High Court in the aforesaid case of Kapildeo Singh and others (supra) after discussing the provisions of section 2 (c) of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and section 16 of the said Act have held that according to the definition of Collector as envisaged in section 2 © of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Collector includes Additional Collector, Additional Deputy Commissioner and any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector under the Act. So, unless there is a notification by the State Government specially empowering the Additional Collector or any other authority mentioned in the definition clause to discharge the function of the Collector, they cannot be treated as Collector in terms of the aforesaid provisions. It has further been held by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment that a bare reading of the provision of sect16 of the Act shows that the word used in section 16 is not the Collector as defined in section 2 (c) of the Act, but it provides that the revision will lie before the Collector of the district. The legislature with the clear intention has provided this power to be exercised by the Collector of the district itself and by no other authority and thereby held that the revision would lie only before the Collector of the district and not before the Additional Collector. Consequently, the order passed by the Additional Collector in the said case was quashed holding that the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the revision. 12. In the present case the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 has been passed by the Additional Collector in exercise of revisional powers under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 13. The Additional Collector has neither the appellate power nor the power of revision under the provision of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 12. In the present case the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 has been passed by the Additional Collector in exercise of revisional powers under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 13. The Additional Collector has neither the appellate power nor the power of revision under the provision of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court it is held that the order as contained in Annexure-5 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh is without jurisdiction. Since the order of the Additional Collector has been upheld by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, by his order dated 11.2.2002 contained in Annexure-6 and, therefore, the said order held to be illegal. Since this writ petition is being allowed on this point jurisdiction only, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised by the writ petitioners. 14. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order as contained in Annexures-5 and 6 are hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the private respondents that, if so advised, they may file a revision before the Collector of the district against the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector contained in Annexure-4 to this writ petition with an application for condoning the delay in filing the revision application. If such revision is filed by the private respondents before the Collector of the district within a period of six weeks from today along with an application for condoning the delay, the Collector of the district shall consider the desirability of condoning the delay in filing the revision on the ground that the private respondents were prosecuting their case under wrong forum and then after hearing both the parties shall decide the case on its merit in accordance with law by a reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of filing of such revision by the private respondents. However, there will be no order as to the costs. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application stands allowed.