SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises from a mutation proceeding and the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders passed in that proceeding. At first, the Circle officer, Siwan, the authority of the first instance, decided the dispute against the petitioner by his order, dated 5 -5 -1995 passed in Mutation case No. 9/95 -96 (a copy whereof is annexure -2). The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by order, dated 20 -7 -1996 passed in Mutation case No. 42/95. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision. Here, it is significant to note that the petitioner filed his revision petition in the Court of Additional Collector, and not before the Collector of the District, Siwan. The revision petition was also dismissed by order, dated 24 -7 -1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Siwan in Mutation appeal No. 228/96 -97/15/99 -2000.

(2.) IT was only then that it seems to have occurred to the petitioner that the Additional Collector had no revisional power and Sec. 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1977 conferred the revisional power only on the Collector of the District. In this writ application, the order passed by the Additional Collector was, therefore, challenged as being without jurisdiction or authority and hence a nullity in the eyes of law. In the writ petition though, the Court was never told that it was the petitioner himself who had filed the revision before the Additional Collector and not before the Collector of the District as required by law. And this fact came to light only through the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, enclosing a copy of the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the cause title of which clearly shows that it was filed in the Court of Additional Collector, Siwan.

(3.) MR . Mahesh Narain Prabhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that no jurisdiction could be conferred upon an authority by consent of the parties and the Additional Collector could not assume the legal authority to hear and dispose of a revision simply because the revision petition was filed before him. The submission is well founded and it must, therefore, be accepted. It is plaint and clear that Sec. 16 of the Act confers the revisional power only on the Collector of the District and the Additional Collector has no power to hear and decide a revision petition. The order dated 24 -7 -1999, passed by the Additional Collector, Siwan is, therefore, quite invalid and it is accordingly, set aside.