Yamuna Prasad Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

Heard Sri Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Priyadarshi, learned A.C. to A.A.G. -1 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 7. 2- Two petitioners, have approached this court invoking its writ jurisdiction for quashing of an order dated

6.8.1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur, in Patna High Court CWJC No.3766 of 2006 (5) dt.18-03-2013 Revision Case No. 16 of 1995-96. By the said order learned Additional Collector has set aside the order dated 26.6.1995 passed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms (West), Muzaffarpur, (hereinafter referred to as “D.C.L.R.”) in Mutation Appeal No. 25 of 1994-95. 3- The petitioners asserted that though the land in dispute was joint family property, respondent no. 7 had executed deed of gift in favour of respondent no. 5 & 6. On the basis of the said deed of gift respondent no. 5 & 6 applied for mutation, and as such, Mutation Case No. 188 of 1994-95 was initiated, which was allowed on 7.12.1994 by the Circle Officer, Paroo. Aggrieved with the order of Circle Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal vide Mutation Appeal No. 25 of 1994-95 and the learned D.C.L.R. by its order dated 26.6.1995 allowed the Appeal and quashed the order passed by the Circle Officer. 4- According to Sri Abhimanyu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, the Additional Collector was not authorized to exercise power under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). According to learned counsel for the petitioners under Section 16 of the Act, only Collector of the district was authorized to entertain the Mutation Appeal, but Patna High Court CWJC No.3766 of 2006 (5) dt.18-03-2013 in the present case learned Additional Collector, Muzaffarpur, had entertained the Revision preferred by private respondents and allowed the same by its order dated 6.8.1996 vide Revision Case No. 16 of 1995-96. 5- According to learned counsel for the petitioners the order of Additional Collector is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on number of judgments of this court particularly on 1997(2) PLJR 404 (Most. Babuni Devi vs. State of Bihar and others), 2000(3) PLJR 839 (Shankar Shukla vs. State & ors.) and 2011 (3) PLJR 422 (Amarendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors.). In sum and substance it has been argued that since the Additional Collector was not authorized to act as Collector of the district, the order passed by Additional Collector dated 6.8.1996 is fit to be quashed. 6- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted by learned counsel for private respondent possession of private respondents was found, and as such, on the basis of deed of gift the land was recorded in favour of private respondents. However, subsequently, an Appeal was preferred Patna High Court CWJC No.3766 of 2006 (5) dt.18-03-2013 by the petitioners and the Appellate Authority i.e. D.C.L.R., acting as if a court of Civil jurisdiction virtually decided the Title and declared that the property in question was joint family property. He submits that the D.C.L.R. was not authorized to decide Title since it was not within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. Such dispute was required to be finally settled by the court of competent jurisdiction. The order of D.C.L.R. was assailed before the Revisional Court and the Additional Collector has unsettled the order of the Appellate Court primarily on the ground that Revenue Court was not required to adjudicate on Title. It has further been argued by learned counsel for private respondent that a Partition Suit was subsequently filed. This fact has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners and in paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition it has been stated that Partition Suit in between the parties is already pending before the Sub Judge -Ist, Saran at Chapra. It has further been pointed out that though the Revisional Order was passed long back in the year 1996, the petitioners instead of approaching this Court preferred a second Revision before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, vide Rev. Case No. 79 –Mut/96-97. Finally, learned Commissioner dismissed the Revision (allowed the case to be withdrawn) by its order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.3766 of 2006 (5) dt.18-03-2013

20.12.2005. 7- It is true that in the present case Additional Collector, who had passed Revisional Order was not having jurisdiction to entertain Revision in view of law laid down by this Court as referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners above. Under Section 16 of the Act, at the relevant time this power was to be exercised by the Collector of the district. Subsequently, in view of Section 2(c) of the Act, the State Government in the year 2008 has already authorized Additional Collector to act as Collector to decide Revision under Section 16 of the Act, but fact remains that, if at the moment, the order of Additional Collector is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below, certainly, in view of amended provision the matter can be examined by the Additional Collector itself. Accordingly, only on technicality, the order passed by the Revisional Court, that too, long back in the year 1996 may not be interfered with. Fact remains that Revision was allowed in the year 1996 and the petitioners preferred to approach this court in the year 2006. It is also evident that Partition Suit is already pending in between the parties. It is settled principle of law that a Revenue Court is not entitled to adjudicate on Title, which is to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction and since the Patna High Court CWJC No.3766 of 2006 (5) dt.18-03-2013 matter is already pending before the Sub Judge -Ist, Saran at Chapra, the Court is of the opinion that at such belated stage it would not be appropriate for this Court to unsettle the order passed by the Additional Collector. However, the matter would be subject to the result of the Partition Suit, which is pending in between the parties. 8- The writ petition stands disposed of. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)