Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 726 (JHR)

Dashrath Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2017-04-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent State and Private Respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is in relation to Annexure-6, order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Chatra whereby he has transferred the Mutation Revision Case No. 15/2011 to the Court of learned Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. According to the petitioner Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has treated the revision petition as appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner that the original order in Misc. Case No. 16/2010-11 instituted on the basis of an application by the private Respondents in respect of the land pertaining to Khata no. 39 of village Karma, P.O. Mandhania, P.S. Itkhori now Mayurhand, District Chatra was passed on 28.2.2011 by the Circle Officer, Itkhori(Annexure-3) observing that the private Respondent should approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their title. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra rejected the Revenue Appeal No. 33/2011 by order dated 14.10.2011 confirming the order of the Circle Officer. 3. It is contended that name of petitioners have rightly been entered into in Register-II while the private Respondents were directed to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their title. Thereafter a revision petition was preferred by the private Respondents being Mutation Revision Case No. 15 of 2011 before the Additional Collector, Chatra who kept the matter pending for more than 2 years and finally transferred it by the impugned order to the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. Despite objections taken, learned Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has treated the revision as appeal. Therefore, petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that learned Additional Collector, Chatra on realizing that revisional powers lie with the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings(Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973, has rightly transferred the case to the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. Learned counsel for the Private Respondents has also taken the similar plea. 5. Even as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, after exhaustion of remedy of appeal by the private Respondents, revision would only lie. Learned counsel for the Private Respondents has also taken the similar plea. 5. Even as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, after exhaustion of remedy of appeal by the private Respondents, revision would only lie. In those circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra being the revisional authority under Section 16 of the Act of 1973 is empowered either on an application made to him or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules by any authority or officer, can call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any such authority. In exercise of such power, the Collector would give reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard before modifying, altering or setting aside any such order. This issue raised by the petitioner herein can very well be addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, who is a statutory authority empowered to exercise the revisional power under the Act of 1973. 6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the contention of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Respondent no.2, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to decide the Mutation Revision Case No. 15 of 2011 in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the parties. Needless to say, it is open for the parties to take all available grounds of law and facts in their defence. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra would make an endeavour to decide the revision petition within reasonable time preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 8.8.2016 stands vacated.