RAM SHANKAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14th August 2002, passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ application filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 17th August, 2001 (annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Jamabandi Revision Case No. 132 of 1993 -94, dismissing the second revision application on the ground that after deletion of Section 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act), he has no power of revision.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the appellants filed an application for mutation with regard to the lands of R.S. Plot No. 581 under Khata No. 475 of village Sahasraon P.S. Aaon in the district of Siwan in the year 1987 -88 before the Circle Officer, Aander and the case was numbered as Case No. 1353/1987 -88. The said mutation case was allowed. Respondent no. 5 when came to know about the said order, filed an application before the Anchal Adhikari stating therein that the Jamabandi has been wrongly created in favour of the appellants and the Anchal Adhikari sent the matter to the D.C.L.R., Siwan, who with his recommendation forwarded the matter to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Chapra who cancelled the order of Jamabandi in favour of the appellants and against that order, the appellants filed a revision before the Additional Collector, who dismissed the same against which they filed a revision before the Commissioner who dismissed the same on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision with regard to creation of Jamabandi.

(3.) FROM the materials on the record, it is clear that the proceeding for creation of mutation was initiated at the instance of the appellants in the year 1987 -88 and even respondent no. 5 challenged the order passed by the Circle Officer in favour of the appellants by filing petition before the authority and that matter was also disposed of prior to 2nd October 1990 by the Sub -Divisional Officer against which the revision was filed by the appellants which was dismissed, as stated above. Thus, it is admitted position that the proceeding with regard to mutation was initiated prior to 2nd October 1990. The Act was made applicable with regard to the District in question with effect from 2.10.1990. Under the Act, there was provision for second revision before the Commissioner under Section 17 of the Act, but that was also deleted by the Notification of the same date. The Act will apply to the proceedings which were initiated on or after 2nd October 1990. With regard to the proceeding pending before the 2nd October 1990, the Act has no application and it will be governed by the Mutation Manual. Clause 10 of the Mutation Manual contained provision with regard to appeals and revision. It contains a provision for second revision before the Divisional Commissioner, provided the Commissioner is satisfied that there are good grounds for entertaining it. Admittedly, in this case, proceeding was initiated prior to 2nd October 1990. So the provision of Mutation Manual is attracted and the second revision is maintainable before the Commissioner. Accordingly, the Commissioner, in our view, was not justified in law in dismissing the revision application on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Had the proceeding been initiated after coming into force of the Act, then his view was right, but as stated above, as the proceeding was initiated prior to coming into force of the Act, the revision was maintainable.