ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ms. Satyakshi, counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the Private Respondent. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- “a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 14-10-2015 passed by respondent no. 2 in Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 02/2014 (Annexure-3), whereby the learned respondent no. 2 has confirmed the order dated 21-07-2014 passed by respondent no. 3 in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 03/2014 (Annexure-2) finding that it is not within the jurisdiction of revenue court to cancel the long standing mutation/jamabandi created in favour of Naresh Sk. (father of respondent no.5) in the year 1973, which is against the finding of respondent no. 2 who observed that entry of Naresh Sk in Register-II does not refer to any order of Anchal Adhakari, Pakur passed in any mutation proceeding and the learned Court failed to consider that such non reference of any mutation proceeding or order of Anchal Adhikari directing Mutation in the name of Naresh Sk renders the said entry by the Karamchari in Register-II on 19-07-2012 wholly forged, fabricated manipulations and tempering with the government records which amounts to criminal offence and renders the said entry a nullity void-ab-initio and non-existent in the eye of law; b. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the finding of the Courts below that the entry of Naresh Sk in 1973 in Register-II is an error of record in view of the following:- i. There is no order of 1973 of Anchal Adhakari, Pakur in any Mutation proceeding directing mutation in the name of Naresh Sk.; ii. The Register-II form nowhere shows entry of Naresh Sk. In the year 1973. There is no signature of Karamchari of 1973. On the contrary signature of Karamchari is dated 19-07-2012 and this proves that entry of Naresh Sk in Resister II form is of 19-07-2012; iii. There is clear finding at page-2 middle in the impugned order of Additional Collector dated 14-10-2015 (Annexure-3) that no rent was fixed of plot no. There is no signature of Karamchari of 1973. On the contrary signature of Karamchari is dated 19-07-2012 and this proves that entry of Naresh Sk in Resister II form is of 19-07-2012; iii. There is clear finding at page-2 middle in the impugned order of Additional Collector dated 14-10-2015 (Annexure-3) that no rent was fixed of plot no. 191 by the L.R.D.C., Pakur in favour of respondent Kaifuddin Sk son of Naresh Sk in Rent Fixation Case No. 2-/2011-2012 by order dated 23-03-2012 and, therefore, the Register-II form prepared by the karamchari on 19-07-2012 showing payment of rent respect of plot no. 191 is rendered forged and fabricated and is a manipulation/tempering with the government records by the karamchari on 19-07-2012; iv. The Register-II form mention a rent receipt number vaguely of 1973 of which the date of 1973 is not legible; v. The Register-II form mention a rent receipt number vaguely of 1973 upto 2013-2014; vi. The Register-II form does not show as to what amount by way of rent was paid in 1973; vii. The Register-II form mentions about the payment of rent upto 2013-2014 and does not mention about the payment of rent and amount of rent from 1973 to 2013-2014; viii. The number 639 (holding number) is much after the petitioner holding no. 355 and this amply proves that manipulation for carving out holding no. 639 is a recent attempt of 2012 i.e. on 19-07-2012; ix. It relates to J.B. No. 360 where as plot no. 191 appertains to J.B. No. 350; c. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 21-07-2014 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-2) whereby he has set-aside the order of learned Circle Officer, Pakur, dated 30-08-2013 passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 03/2013-2014 (Annexure-1) finding that due to the long standing mutation of Plot no. 191 since 1973 in favour of Naresh Sk. the prayer of petitioner for cancelling the mutation of Naresh Sk. is not sustainable in law, without appreciating the fact that the entry of the name of Naresh Sk. Case No. 03/2013-2014 (Annexure-1) finding that due to the long standing mutation of Plot no. 191 since 1973 in favour of Naresh Sk. the prayer of petitioner for cancelling the mutation of Naresh Sk. is not sustainable in law, without appreciating the fact that the entry of the name of Naresh Sk. in Register-II does not refer to any mutation proceeding or mutation case number or any order passed for mutation by Anchal Adhikari in the name of Naresh Sk which renders the entry of 2012 forged and fabricated for which the Karamchari concerned be departmentally proceeded against and punished for analising manipulation and tampering with the government records; d. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to initiate a high level enquiry for ascertainment and identification of the concerned government employee (Karamchari), who by making manipulation and forgery entered the name of Naresh Sk showing entry of Nareesh Sk and rent receipt of 1973 in the government record Register-II and direct the respondent no. 1 to take necessary legal action against the identified government employee. e. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the entry of Naresh Sk in Register-II by the Karamchari on 19-07-2012 is forged, fabricated, illegal, arbitrary malafide and non-existent and is a nullity in view of the fact that the said Register-II showing entry of Naresh Sk and rent receipt of 1973 (date not legible) without any order of Anchal Adhikari, Pakur in connection with any mutation proceeding directing mutation in the name of Naresh Sk in respect of Plot no. 191 J.B. No. 350 of Mauza-Rashikpur and therefore, a proved ease of forgery and manipulation/tampering with the government records by the Karamchari on 19-07-2012 amounting to criminal offence and for which the said Karamchari is liable to be proceeded against and punished; f. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the finding of Courts beow that Jamabandi in the name of Naresh Sk of Plot no. 191 is of 1973 and therefore creation of two Jamabandis in the name of Naresh Sk and Amarnath Biswas for the same plot no. 191 is of 1973 and therefore creation of two Jamabandis in the name of Naresh Sk and Amarnath Biswas for the same plot no. 191 is suspicious is wholly perverse and illegal in view of the legal position that entry of Naresh Sk in Register-II on 19-07-2012 is forged fabricated and an act of fraud and tmpering with the the government records and therefore a nullity, void abinitio and non existent; g. And pass such other orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order which has been passed by the Additional Collector, Pakur is itself without jurisdiction, in as much as, the second appeal which was filed by the petitioner before the said authority was itself not maintainable. The counsel refers to the Provision of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and submits that the order passed by the Circle Officer, Pakur in connection with mutation is under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, against which the appeal lies before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector under Section 15 and the revision lies before the Collector of District, under Section 16 of the said Act. He submits that the appeal was rightly filed before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, but so far as the Second Appeal is concerned, which has been filed before the Additional Collector, Pakur and entertained by the said authority was itself not maintainable and is accordingly without jurisdiction. 6. Upon this, counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the legal proposition that the Second Appeal was not maintainable before the Additional Collector, Pakur against the appellate order. The counsel does not dispute that the petitioner had a remedy before the Collector of the District by way of revision under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2014 be set aside and a liberty be reserved with the petitioner to challenge the appellate order before the revisional authority under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. 7. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2014 be set aside and a liberty be reserved with the petitioner to challenge the appellate order before the revisional authority under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that as per the provisions of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, revision against the appellate order lies before the Collector of District and there is no provision of Second Appeal. The Collector of the District has been defined under Section 2 (c) of the aforesaid Act which reads as follows:- ”2. (c) “Collector” includes an Additional Deputy Commissioner and other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act.” 8. In the judgment passed by Patna High Court reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 629 (Yogesh Chaturvedi vs. State of Bihar) it has been observed that Additional Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. 9. Considering the submissions made, the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2014 by the learned Additional Collector, Pakur is hereby set aside as the appeal was not maintainable before the said authority and hence impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. 10. This Court finds that Second Appeal which was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, Pakur was misconceived. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the appellate order passed by the appellate authority in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2013-14 dated 21.07.2014 by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Pakur before the Collector of the district under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 within a period of two months from today. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the rival claims between the parties. 13. This writ petition is hereby disposed of. Petition disposed of.