JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 25.4.2022 passed in Revenue Revision case no. 25/2021 by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Annexure-3); whereby the learned Commissioner allowed the Revision petition filed by the Respondent nos. 2 to 8 which was filed against the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Revision no. 44 R 15/17-18 (Annexure-2) affirming the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Revenue Sadar, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal case no. 26/2014-15. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an application for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of private respondents in respect of Khata no. 18, Revenue Thana no. 235, measuring an area 19.46 Acres of village- Harser before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi which was registered as Miscellaneous Appeal Case no. 26/2014-15. The said application of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2016 by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi. Thereafter, the respondents preferred Miscellaneous Revision Case no. 44 R15/2017-18 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has dismissed the Miscellaneous Revision Case. Thereafter respondents have preferred second revision being Revenue Revision No. 25 of 2021 under Section 28 of Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 against the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Revision No. 44 R15/2017-18 which was allowed on 25.04.2022 by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division Ranchi in Revenue Revision No. 25 of 2021. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ petition for quashing of the order passed dated 25.04.2022 by the Divisional Commissioner. 4. Mr. P.P.N.Roy, learned senior counsel submits that the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 has been passed in Revenue Revision Case No. 25/2021, whereby the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Revision 44R 15/17-18 as well as order passed by the Deputy Collector in Misc Appeal No. 26/2014-2015 was set aside and the petitioner was given liberty to move before competent Civil Court for their right, title and interest. Revision 44R 15/17-18 as well as order passed by the Deputy Collector in Misc Appeal No. 26/2014-2015 was set aside and the petitioner was given liberty to move before competent Civil Court for their right, title and interest. He further submits that the second revision is not maintainable and the exercise of power by referring to section 28 of the Act to deal with the mutation matter on merit and to set-aside the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction. 5. Learned senior counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sumitra Devi vs state of Jharkhand & others being W.P(C) No. 5526 of 2016 and has referred to paragraph 21 of the said judgment. He also referred to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Baldeo Dangi and others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others , 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 5363 and submits that it has been held that section 28 merely indicates administrative control of the Collector, Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue over the Circle Officer and Land Reforms Deputy Collector and it is primarily intended at ensuring compliance of the Circle Officer and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector of the directions issued by the Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The said provision cannot be said to confer an adjudicatory power upon the Board of Revenue and to entertain an application purportedly under section 16 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the Revenue Revision No. 25 of 2021 was filed by the respondents under Section 28 of Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 against the order passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Revision No. 44 R15/2017-18 and the purpose of the Act is to provide maintenance of up-to-date record of holding of raiyats in the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). He further submits that since, the learned Court and Board of Revenue have the power to control and superintendence over the Collector of the District as well as the order passed by the Collector of the District and thereby in the present case the Ranchi Revenue Commissioner being the controlling and superintendence power over the order passed by the lower court entitled to examine the proprietary, validity and legality of the order passed by the Collector of District. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the provision enshrined in Section 28 of the Act, it transpires that the issue regarding cancellation of Jamabandi contained in Register- II travelled up till the revision and the order in revision was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Revision No. 44 R15/17-18 in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd revision being Revenue Revision Case No. 25 of 2021 was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur division, Ranchi. 8. The sole question to be decided in the instant petition is as to whether second revision adjudicated by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur division, Ranchi was maintainable or not ? For this issue, it is profitable to refer the judgment passed by this Court in Sumitra Devi vs state of Jharkhand (Supra) wherein this Court has held in paragraphs 18 and 21 as follows: "18. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that as per the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, the application for mutation is required to be filed before the "Circle Officer", the appellate authority is "Land Reforms Deputy Collector" and the revisional authority is the "Collector of the District". This Court further finds that there was a provision for second revision before the "Commissioner", which was subsequently deleted and admittedly the power of second revision is not available under the aforesaid Act of 1973. 19… 20… 21. This Court finds that the provisions of Section 28 of the aforesaid Act of 1973, Rule 3 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rile, 1958 and Section 270 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, are in connection with general superintendence regarding the functioning of the authorities under the Commissioner. This Court is of the considered view that the said provisions do not confer power upon the Commissioner to exercise power of second revision against the order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2016 by which the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, is wholly without jurisdiction, which is hereby set-aside." Emphasis Supplied 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2016 by which the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, is wholly without jurisdiction, which is hereby set-aside." Emphasis Supplied 9. Further, in the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Baldeo Dangi and others (Supra), the scope of section 28 of the Act of 1973 has been considered in paragraph 4 as follows: "4. The question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. The jurisdiction of an authority/court to entertain a petition and decide the lis between the parties and provisions of appeal and revision are creature of statute. It is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties. A waiver on the part of the parties also cannot constitute jurisdiction upon the authority which otherwise is not competent to hear and decide the petition filed before it. The Bihar Tenants' Holding (Maintenance of records) Act, 1973 is a complete code in itself which provides an elaborate mechanism for deciding application filed for Mutation. The Act provides appeal under Section 15 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Section 16 of the Act provides that the Collector of District may for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of an order made under the Act, can entertain the petition and examine the record and pass appropriate order. In view of specific provision under Section 16 of the 1973 Act, conferring power of revision upon the Collector of the District, no other authority which has not been notified to exercise power under Section 16 of the Act, can entertain the petition. The reliance placed upon Section 28 of the Act is misconceived. Section 28 merely indicates the administrative control of the Collector, Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue over the Circle Officer and Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Section 18 is primarily intended at ensuring compliance of the Circle Officer and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector of the directions issued by the Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. The said provision cannot be said to confer an adjudicatory power upon the Board of Revenue and to entertain an application purportedly under Section 16 of the Act." Emphasis supplied 10. This Court finds that by the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur division, Ranchi has undertaken adjudicatory role by referring to Section 28 of the Act of 1973. The said provision cannot be said to confer an adjudicatory power upon the Board of Revenue and to entertain an application purportedly under Section 16 of the Act." Emphasis supplied 10. This Court finds that by the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur division, Ranchi has undertaken adjudicatory role by referring to Section 28 of the Act of 1973. This Court has already held in earlier judgements that the 2nd revision is not maintainable and in view of the aforesaid judgments, the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 in Revenue Revision Case No. 25/2021 passed by Divisional Commissioner South Chotanagpur division, Ranchi in purported exercise of power under section 28 of the Act of 1973 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for being without jurisdiction and is accordingly set-aside. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any also stands closed.