AMARENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10324 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the learned Additional Collector was not competent to decide the revision application under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for which only the Collector of the district has been authorized. The learned Single Judge remanded the matter for hearing by the Collector of the district in terms of Section 16 of the Act, 1961. The learned Single Judge did not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondent (the appellant in this appeal), as the matter involved an issue of law which has already been settled by a Division Bench of this Court.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that one Upendra Kumar Singh and Kaushalendra Kumar Singh, brothers of the appellant, filed Mutation Case No. 42 of 2001 before the learned Circle Officer, Bihta, for issuing rent receipts by opening Zamabandi in their favour. The learned Circle Officer rejected the application vide order dated 12.2.2001. They filed an appeal before the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Danapur, under Section 15 of the Act, being Appeal No.1 of 2001-02, which was allowed on 18.7.2001. Now it was the appellant's turn to file revision application before the learned Collector, Patna, being Mutation Revision Case No.15 of 2001-02, under Section 16 of the Act. The revision application was admitted on 18.1.2006, and finally allowed by the learned Additional Collector in favour of the appellant vide order dated 24.2.2010. Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in this appeal filed C.W.J.C. No. 10324 of 2010, against the order of the Additional Collector, dated 24.2.2010 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 15 of 2001-02. The learned Single Judge by order dated 7.7.2010, observed that, in view of statutory provisions of Act of 1973, as well as Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Kapildeo Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 2003 2 PLJR 431, an Additional Collector would not have jurisdiction to decide revision application under Section 16 of the Act for which only the Collector of the district is authorized. The learned Single Judge remitted the matter to the learned Collector of the district for fresh adjudication. The appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by preferring the present appeal.

(3.) Heard Mr. Shrinandan Singh for the appellant and respondent no. 10, learned State Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. Dinu Kumar appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 9.