JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.5. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, associate Counsel to S.C.(L&C) appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that notice has been validly served upon all the necessary parties and the case is ready to be taken up for final disposal. To this counsel for the respondents also do not raise any objection. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he may be allowed to implead the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat), P.O. + P.S.-Bermo, Distt. Bokaro as party Respondent No.12. The prayer is allowed. The counsel for the petitioner is directed to incorporate the name of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat), P.O. + P.S.-Bermo, Distt. Bokaro as party Respondent No.12. 6. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of Mutation Revision Case No.4 of 2002 including the order passed by Additional Collector, Bokaro (respondent no.2) on 11.10.2004 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submits as under: (a) The petitioners had applied for mutation in connection with properties involved in the case before the Circle Officer, Kasmar. Two applications for mutation were filed relating to the property covered under two sale deeds. The Circle Officer, Kasmar had partly allowed mutation of only portion of the properties covered under each sale deed. (b) Against this the petitioners preferred two separate mutation appeals bearing no.07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat) which was dismissed by one common order vide order dated 25.03.1996. (c) Being aggrieved by the appellate orders the petitioners preferred Mutation Revision before the Collector, Bokaro at Chas who vide order dated 11.8.1998 remanded the matter to the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) with a direction to dispose of the record at the earliest after giving the parties due opportunity of being heard. (c) Being aggrieved by the appellate orders the petitioners preferred Mutation Revision before the Collector, Bokaro at Chas who vide order dated 11.8.1998 remanded the matter to the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) with a direction to dispose of the record at the earliest after giving the parties due opportunity of being heard. (d) Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the matter was remanded to Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) instead of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat), the petitioners filed another revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag being Mutation Revision Case No. 74 of 1998 against the order dated 11.08.1998 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.1999 by the court of the Commissioner, Hazaribagh on account of want of jurisdiction. (e) Accordingly, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) as per the order dated 11.08.1998 passed by the Collector, Bokaro heard the parties at length and allowed the Mutation Appeal Nos.07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 vide order dated 24.04.2002. (f) Against the order passed in Mutation Appeal No. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 the respondents filed Mutation Revision No. 04 of 2002 before the Additional Collector, Bokaro and the Additional Collector, Bokaro allowed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 11.10.2004. (g) The counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 11.10.2004 was passed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro and the same is wholly without jurisdiction and is accordingly fit to be set aside. (h) The counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 11.10.2004 is wholly without jurisdiction particularly, in view of the fact that Additional Collector, Bokaro has not been vested with power under section 16 of Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. He submits that Power of Revision has been conferred on the Collector of the District and Collector has been defined under section 2(c) of the aforesaid Act. Section 2(c) and Section 16 of the aforesaid Act reads as under:- “Section 2(c) : “Collector” includes an Additional Deputy Commissioner and other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act. Section 2(c) and Section 16 of the aforesaid Act reads as under:- “Section 2(c) : “Collector” includes an Additional Deputy Commissioner and other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act. Section 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 officer 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.” It is submitted that no notification has been issued empowering the Additional Collector to exercise the Powers of Collector under section 2(c) read with section 16 of the aforesaid Act. He submits that since the order is wholly without jurisdiction therefore, the same is fit to be set aside. (i) On the point of jurisdiction counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments reported in 2003 (2) PLJR 431 , 2000 (3) PLJR 839, 2005 (2) PLJR 629 and 1997 (2) PLJR 404 and submits that the Additional Collector has no power of revision under section 16 read with section 2(c) of the aforesaid Act and this issue has already been decided in the aforesaid judgments. (j) Counsel for the respondent no.5 on the other hand, by relying upon the judgment reported in (1999) 8 SCC 16 submits that if the impugned order is set aside as being without jurisdiction that will amount to revival of appellate order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bokaro which itself is wholly without jurisdiction as the appellate authority under the Act is Land Reforms Deputy Collector and not Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the order which is without jurisdiction may not be set aside if it would revive another order which is without jurisdiction. (k) He submits that since Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not an authority under the aforesaid Act therefore, passing of order in the matter of mutation by the said authority is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is in direct conflict with the provisions of Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Counsel for the respondents submits that both the orders of Mutation Appeal Nos. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 were passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate pursuant to an order passed in Mutation Revision by which the matter was remanded back to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) who was directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest after giving parties due opportunity of being heard. He submits that there was no occasion for revisional court to remand the matter to the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bokaro particularly, in view of the fact that the appellate order which was impugned in Mutation Revision No.05 of 1996 was passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat) in Mutation Appeal No. 08 of 1995 and the matter if at all could have been remanded, it should have been remanded to Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat) and not to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bokaro. It is submitted that similar is the situation with regard to Mutation Appeal No. 07 of 1995. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the definition of “Sub-Divisional Officer” as defined under section 2(t) of the Act to say that Sub-Divisional Officer is an officer in-charge of civil administration of the sub-division of a district and has got nothing to do with revenue administration. Counsel has also referred to the definition of Land Reforms Deputy Collector as defined under section 2 (j) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the legal position that the Additional Collector is not empowered to dispose the revision petitions under section 16 of the aforesaid Act. Counsel has also referred to the definition of Land Reforms Deputy Collector as defined under section 2 (j) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the legal position that the Additional Collector is not empowered to dispose the revision petitions under section 16 of the aforesaid Act. Counsel for the respondents submits that if the order of the revisional authority as well as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bokaro are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority under the Act that is, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat) for fresh consideration of Mutation Appeal Nos.07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 that will meet the ends of justice. 8. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that point of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector was not raised by the petitioners before the revisional authority and they are raising the said plea before this Court which may not be entertained. 9. However the counsel for the respondent-State as well as counsel appearing for the petitioner could not dispute that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer do not have the power to decide appeal under the Act. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition so as to ensure that the matter is decided by the competent authority who has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Argument of the respondent-State that point of jurisdiction having not been raised by the petitioners earlier may not be entertained in this writ proceedings is rejected in view of the fact that the point of jurisdiction can certainly be raised before the writ Court even if it was not raised earlier. This is so particularly in view of the fact that this point of jurisdiction of Additional Collector under the Act has been decided by a number of judgments as referred to above by the counsel for petitioners and accordingly there can be no dispute that the Additional Collector, Bokaro had no jurisdiction to hear the revision under section 16 of the Act in absence of any notification to that effect. Accordingly, the revisional order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 11.10.2004 passed by Additional Collector, Bokaro in Revision Case No. 04 of 2002 is set aside being wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revisional order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 11.10.2004 passed by Additional Collector, Bokaro in Revision Case No. 04 of 2002 is set aside being wholly without jurisdiction. Further, as setting aside of this revisional order will revive appellate order dated 24.04.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) in Mutation Appeal Nos. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 who also does not have any jurisdiction under the Act to decide appeals, is also required to be set aside as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) not an authority under the aforesaid Act. The legal point regarding Sub-Divisional Magistrate having no jurisdiction to decide appeals under the Act has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioners as well as the State-respondent Accordingly, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo in Mutation Appeal Nos. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 is also set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat) with a direction to hear Mutation Appeal Nos. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. 11. This writ petition is allowed. The order dated 11.10.2004 in Mutation Revision Case No.04 of 2002 passed by Additional Collector, Bokaro as well as order dated 24.04.2002 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo (Tenughat) in Mutation Appeal No.07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bermo (Tenughat) to pass fresh order in Mutation Appeal Nos. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that he would appear before the said appellate authority within a period of two weeks and a date may be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority namely, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bokaro (Tenughat) in Mutation Appeal Case Nos. 07 of 1995 and 08 of 1995 on 16.04.2018 and upon their appearance the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Bokaro (Tenughat) is directed to proceed in accordance with law and pass final order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.