Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 719 (JHR)

Hari Lal Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2010-07-08

R.K.MERATHIA

body2010
ORDER : Heard. 2. Prayer for mutation made by respondent No. 2 - Bhagwati Devi was allowed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur vide Mutation Case No. 382 of 1996-97 by order dated 16.3,1999 against which petitioner preferred an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 8 of 2000-01 before Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) which was dismissed by order dated 27.11.2002 against which the petitioner preferred a revision being Mutation Revision No. 57 of 2002-03 before the Additional Deputy Collector which was allowed on 2.2.2006. Against that order, respondent No. 2 preferred revision before the Commissioner being Mutation Revision No. 6 of 2006 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 6.7.2006. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the definition of 'Collector' in Section 2(c) read with Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') submitted that Section 16 refers to 'Collector' defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. He further submitted that in the latter part of Section 16 also only 'Collector' has been used. Therefore, he submitted that second revision by the respondent No. 2 before the Commissioner was barred and accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.7.2006 passed in Mutation Revision No. 6 of 2006 should be set aside. He relied on Full Bench judgment reported in 1986 PLJR 1057 Ram Chandra Ram v. Commissioner North Chotanagpur and Ors. He further submitted that if the order passed in Revision No. 57 of 2002-03 by Additional Deputy Collector, was without jurisdiction, the respondent No. 2 could have challenged it. Moreover, he submitted that respondent No. 2 nowhere said that Additional Deputy Commissioner was not empowered by the notification of the Government to hear revision u/s 16. 4. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that Section 16 of the Act refers to the 'Collector of district' and the 'Collector' used in Section 16 in the latter part will only mean the 'Collector of district', and therefore the order passed in Mutation Revision No. 57 of 2002-03 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction. 5. I find force in the submission of Mr. P.K. Prasad. The cases relied by him- 1997 (2) PLJR 404 Most. Babuni Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2000 (3) PLJR 839 Shankar Shukla v. State and Ors. 5. I find force in the submission of Mr. P.K. Prasad. The cases relied by him- 1997 (2) PLJR 404 Most. Babuni Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2000 (3) PLJR 839 Shankar Shukla v. State and Ors. and 2005 (4) JLJR 157 Kashi Nath Bagaria v. State of Bihar and Ors. fully supports his contention. The "Collector of District"- Deputy Commissioner was only entitled to hear revision. Accordingly, it is held that the order passed in Mutation Revision No. 57 of 2002-03, by the Additional Deputy Collector is without jurisdiction. On a the strength of such order, petitioners cannot contend that the revision filed by the respondent No. 2, before Commissioner, was second revision. In the Full Bench judgment of Ram Chandra Ram (Supra); the interpretation of "Collector of District" in Section 16 was not involved. This question was directly involved in the said cases relied by Mr. Prasad. The Commissioner must be held to have correctly exercised his power of superintendence u/s 28 of the Act, against the order passed by the Additional Deputy Collector. If the impugned order of Commissioner is set aside, it will amount to revival of the order passed by the Additional Deputy Collector, who had no jurisdiction to pass order. [See 2004 (3) JCR 362 (Jhr.) Manohar Lal Jain v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 1999 (8) SCC 16 Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1988 (1) SCC 40 , Mohammad Swalleh and Others Vs. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut and Another, 6. In the result this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to move before competent civil court for appropriate relief.