JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. V.Shivnath, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assisted by Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent. 3. Heard Mr. Apurv, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: For quashing the order dated 29.06.2013 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Palamau Division at Medininagar in Revenue Revision No.27/2012 and the order dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar in Miscellaneous Case No.14/2011 whereby the Court of Commissioner Medininager and Deputy Collector Land Reforms Department cancelled the running Jamabandi of the petitioner in relation to the lands appertaining to plot no.53/1 besides other of Khata No.50 of an area of 3.95 Acres has been cancelled and the name of the respondent no.2 has been directed to be inserted in its place. And For further issuance a writ (s)/ order(s)/ directions(s) that during the pendency of the writ application the operation of the impugned order be stayed till the disposal of the writ application. And the respondent no.2 should in the present claim be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner." 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order which has been passed by the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar, whereby the said authority has entertained the second revision, although the earlier revision filed before the same authority was already decided by earlier order dated 21.09.2012 passed in Misc. Rev. Case No. 24 of 2012. He submits that this order is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submits that there is a running Jamabandi in the name of the petitioners which could not have been interfered with by any of the authorities. He submits that the earlier order passed by the Commissioner in Misc. Rev. Case No. 24 of 2012 is annexed as Annexure - 7 to this writ petition, and the subsequent order passed by the same authority in Revenue Revision Case no. 27 of 2012 is annexed as Annexure - 8 which is the impugned order in this case. 6. He submits that the earlier order passed by the Commissioner in Misc. Rev. Case No. 24 of 2012 is annexed as Annexure - 7 to this writ petition, and the subsequent order passed by the same authority in Revenue Revision Case no. 27 of 2012 is annexed as Annexure - 8 which is the impugned order in this case. 6. Counsel submits that the application for mutation was filed by the private respondent before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 2011-12, who passed an order in favour of the private respondent herein. Against which, the petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar which was numbered as Miscellaneous Mutation Appeal No. 14 of 2011 and vide order dated 11.09.2012, the appeal was decided in favour of the petitioners. 7. Thereafter, the revision was filed before the Commissioner, Palamau Division at Medininagar by the private respondent and second revision was also filed before the Commissioner, Palamau Division at Medininagar by the private respondent. 8. During the course of argument, when the counsel was asked to refer to the provisions of law under which these orders have been passed, he submits that this orders have been passed under the provisions of Bihar Tenant''s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and he refers to Section 14, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid Act. 9. The aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1973 are quoted herein below for ready reference: "14. Requisition and disposal of mutation case. - (1) On receipt of notice under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 or an application under sections 11 and 12 or a report under Section 13, the Anchal Adhikari shall start a mutation proceeding and after entering it in the mutation case register which shall be maintained in the prescribed form shall cause such enquiry to be made as may be deemed necessary. (2) The Anchal Adhikari shall issue a general notice and also give notice to the parties concerned to file objection, if any, within fifteen days of the issue to the notice. On receipt of objection, if any, the Anchal Adhikari shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce evidence, if any, and of being heard and dispose of the objection and pass such orders as may be deemed necessary. On receipt of objection, if any, the Anchal Adhikari shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce evidence, if any, and of being heard and dispose of the objection and pass such orders as may be deemed necessary. (3) In cases in which no objections are received the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of within one month of the date of expiry of filing objection and in cases in which objections are received, the Anchal Adhikari shall dispose them of in not more than three months from the date of expiry of the period of filing objections. 15. Appeals. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector against the order of the Anchal Adhikari passed under sub-section (2) of Section 14, if preferred within [thirty days] of the date of the order appealed against. (2) No order modifying, altering or setting-aside any order appealed against shall be passed under this section unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Subject to the provisions of section 16, the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on appeal shall be final. 16. Revision. - The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or office call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit: Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order; Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting-aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard." 10. Upon perusal of the said Act, this Court finds that the original order in connection with mutation is to be passed by the Circle Officer and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector is the appellate authority. The revision lies before the Collector of the District and there is no provision for any second revision or any proceeding before the Commissioner under the aforesaid Act of 1973. 11. The revision lies before the Collector of the District and there is no provision for any second revision or any proceeding before the Commissioner under the aforesaid Act of 1973. 11. Upon this being pointed out, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that if the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is set-aside as without jurisdiction, then the other orders may revive, which are also contrary to the provision of the Act of 1973 and hence without jurisdiction. 12. Counsel for the parties could not dispute the legal position that the original application in connection with mutation has to be filed before the Circle Officer, the appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and revision before the Collector of the District. 13. This Court finds that in the instant case, the original order was passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, who is an appellate authority under the Act and the appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, who is the revisional authority under the Act and the revision was filed before the Commissioner, who is not an authority under the Act at all. Accordingly, neither the first revision was maintainable before the Commissioner nor the second revision was maintainable before the Commissioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that setting aside of the second revisional order may revive other orders which are also without jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court hereby sets-aside the Misc. Case No.6 of 2011-12 passed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Latehar as contained in Annexure - 5, appellate order being Miscellaneous Case No.14/2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar as contained in Annexure - 6, revisional order being Misc. Rev. Case No.24/2012 passed by the Commissioner, Medininagar as contained in Annexure - 7, and second revisional order being Revenue Revision No.27 of 2012 passed by the Commissioner, Medininagar as contained in Annexure - 8 being wholly without jurisdiction. 14. This Court further finds that in the instant case the parties are claiming running Jamabandi in their favour and both of them are claiming possession. This court has not entered into rival claim between the parties. 14. This Court further finds that in the instant case the parties are claiming running Jamabandi in their favour and both of them are claiming possession. This court has not entered into rival claim between the parties. In such circumstances, it will be open to the parties to have their remedy in accordance with law which may include moving before the Circle Officer in connection with Jamabandi or by filing suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the property.