Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1194 of 2006 ====================================================== 1. Kundan Kumar 2. Gulshan Kumar, Both sons of Shyam Sundar Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Dharmshala Road, Saharsa, P.S. Saharsa Town, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3. The Additional Collector, Saharsa. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Saharsa. 5. The Circle Officer, Kahara ( Saharsa) 6. Natendra Kumar S/O Late Dharmdatt Prasad 7. Sushil Kumar S/O Late Dharmdatt Prasad 8. Shyam Sundar Prasad S/O Late Jagarnath Prasad. All resident of Mohalla- Dharamshala Road, P.S. Saharsa Town, District- Saharsa. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Neeraj Kumar For the Respondents 1 to 5 : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, AC to PAAG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 09-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AC to PAAG appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 5. Unfortunately, despite valid service of notice, the contesting respondent no. 6 and 7 have chosen not to appear in this matter to contest the claim made on behalf of the petitioners. Respondent No. 8, being the father of the petitioners, is a proforma respondent. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2005 ( Anneure-7)passed in Mutation Revision Case No.7 of 2004-05 by the respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa, have
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.1194 of 2006 (6) dt.09-07-2013 2/5
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in the present proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned revisional order dated 29.9.2005. The dispute relates to a plot of land bearing C.S. Khata No. 994 appertaining to C.S.Khesra no. 4827, area 1 katha, 3 dhurs and 11 dhurky situate at Saharsa town. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with respect to the lands in dispute respondent no. 6 and 7 filed a mutation case before the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Kahara (Saharsa) under the provisions of Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (In short “1973 Act”), which gave rise to Mutation Case No. 1227 of 2003-04 and it was allowed by an order dated 16.03.2004 (Annexure-1). The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Kahara (Saharsa) preferred Mutation Appeal No. 57 of 2004-05 which was finally heard and allowed by the respondent D.C.L.R, Sadar, Saharsa by order dated 17.12.2004(Annexure-2) and the order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, ( Kahara) Saharsa was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 and 7 preferred Mutation Revision No. 7 of 2004-05 before the respondent District Collector, Saharsa in terms of Section 16 of 1973 Act, which was finally heard by the Patna High Court CWJC No.1194 of 2006 (6) dt.09-07-2013 3/5 respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa, and by the impugned order dated 29.09.2005 (Annexure-7) he has allowed the aforesaid revision application and has set aside the order passed by the respondent D.C.L.R, Sadar, Saharsa. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned revisional order primarily on the ground of jurisdictional error committed by the respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa in hearing and deciding the revision application filed by the respondent no. 6 and 7. He submits that under Section 16 of 1973 Act only the District Collector, Saharsa was authorized to hear and decide the revision application filed by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and, therefore, the impugned revisional order passed by the respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his above contention he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Yogesh Chaturvedi v. State of Bihar [2005(2) PLJR 629]. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries has fairly submitted that the order impugned is not in accordance with law. However, he has faintly submitted that it would be in the interest of the parties that the entire matter is left to be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction, as element of right and title is also involved in the dispute between the Patna High Court CWJC No.1194 of 2006 (6) dt.09-07-2013 4/5 parties. After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa was not legally authorized to hear the Mutation Revision No. 7 of 2004-05 filed by the respondent no. 6 and 7 under the provisions of 1973 Act. Section 2( C) of the 1973 Act defines “Collector”, which includes an Additional Collector, an Additional Deputy Commissioner and any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector especially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act. However, Section 16 of the 1973 Act provides that a revision application has to be heard by the Collector of the District for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The legislative intent is very clear and there is absolutely no ambiguity with respect to the Collector under the Act and the Collector of the District. The Additional Collector may be the Collector under the 1973 Act, but he is not the Collector of the District. Therefore, he can not exercise the revisional power vested in the Collector of the District under Section 16 of the 1973 Act. Hence, the impugned revisional order dated 29.09.2005 (Annexure-7) passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.1194 of 2006 (6) dt.09-07-2013 5/5 respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa is not sustainable in law, as it has been passed by an authority, who was not legally authorized to pass such an order. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned revisional order dated 29.09.2005 (Annexure-7) passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 7 of 2004-05 by the respondent Additional Collector, Saharsa is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Collector, Saharsa with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In order to facilitate the early disposal of the matter, the petitioners are hereby directed to appear before the respondent District Collector, Saharsa with a certified copy of the present order within a period of six weeks from today. On receipt/production of la copy of the present order, the respondent District Collector, Saharsa shall fix a firm date and shall proceed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law expeditiously.
Decision
The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations and directions made above. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)