JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, JC to GP-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for the following reliefs: “(a) For quashing of the order dated 26.12.2008 passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Collector at Ranchi, in Mutation Revision No.28R/2008-2009, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to set-aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector at Ranchi and further the Circle Officer, Ratu was directed to enter the name of Government of Jharkhand in Register-II. (b) For quashing the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by respondent no.4, the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ratu, in Mutation Case No.1933 of 2006-2007, whereby he has been pleased to reject the mutation application of the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos.2667, 3825 and 2647 under Khata No.426 village Ratu for an area of 67 decimal. (c) Upon quashing the aforesaid orders be further pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to accept the mutation application of the petitioner and enter the name of the petitioner in Register-II with respect to Plot Nos.2667, 3825 and 2647 under Khata No.426 village Ratu for an area of 67 decimal.” 4. During the course of argument, the only point which has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is on the point of jurisdiction of respondent no.2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that if the point of jurisdiction of the respondent no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner, there is no point entering into the merits of the case. He further submits that the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 has been passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi on a revision application filed by the respondent-State. It is submitted that in view of specific provisions of Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, particularly Section 2(c) read with Section 16, the revision lies before the Collector. The term Collector has been defined under Section 2(c) of the said Act which includes an Additional Deputy Collector and other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector especially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the function of the Collector under the Act. The term Collector has been defined under Section 2(c) of the said Act which includes an Additional Deputy Collector and other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector especially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the function of the Collector under the Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Collector, Ranchi was not empowered to act as a Collector and accordingly, the revision being Mutation Revision Case No. 28R/2008-2009 decided by the Additional Collector, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act is wholly without jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-26 of the writ petition to submit that the jurisdiction of the authority passing the impugned order has been specifically challenged in the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, tried to justify the case on the merits of the matter. However, so far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned, the counsel for the respondent is not in a position to refer to any notification empowering the Additional Collector to exercise power of revision under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that there is no notification on record empowering the Additional Collector, Ranchi under Section 2(c) of the aforesaid Act to exercise the powers of Collector under the said Act, I find that the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Additional Collector in Mutation Revision No.28R/2008-2009 filed by the State is wholly without jurisdiction. 7. In support of his point, counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in (2003) 2 PLJR 431 and submits that the Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court has held that in the absence of any notification by the State Government specifically empowering the Additional Collector or any other authority mentioned in the definition clause of the Act to discharge the function of the collector, the Additional Collector or any other authority cannot exercise the powers and functions of the Collector. 8. 8. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the court of Additional Collector Ranchi in Mutation Revision No.28R/2008-2009 is hereby set-aside being wholly without jurisdiction with a liberty to the State to file a fresh revision application before the competent authority i.e. Collector, Ranchi assailing the order passed by the appellate authority. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with aforesaid liberty to the respondents.