SUNAINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha for the petitioner, Mr. Abbas Hsaider J.C. to GP No. II for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Dhruv Narayan for respondent No. 5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure- 7), passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Munger, in Munger Revenue Mutation Revision No. 9/96-97 (Sunaina Devi v. Sheonandan Singh and Ors.), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioner under Section 17 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable.

(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner acquired right, title and interest with respect to the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dt. 31.12.85. Thereafter she filed an application under the provisions of the Act, for mutation which was registered as Case No. 55/86-87. The learned Circle Officer, Dharhara, passed his order dated 6.6.87 (Annexure-2) also inviting objections. He passed orders for a general citation which was published soon thereafter, a copy whereof is marked Annexure-2A to the writ petition. It is further stated in the writ petition that no objection was received. By order dated 13.7.87 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Dharhara, the petitioner's application for mutation was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, on Sheo Nandan Singh filed the statutory appeal in items of Section 15 of the Act, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 22/88-89 (Sheo Nandan Singh v. Sunaina Devi and Anr.). Appeal was allowed by order dated 18.12.90 (Annexure-5), primarily on the ground that it raised issues relating to right, title and interest. The present petitioner preferred revision application in terms of Section 16 of the Act, which was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 4/90-91 (Sunaina Devi v. Sheo Nandan Singh) which was dismissed on same or similar ground. The petitioner thereafter preferred second revision application before the learned Commissioner of Munger Division which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of maintainability, namely, Section 17 of the Act has already been deleted.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that second revision application before the learned Commissioner is maintainable. He relies on the judgments of this Court reported in 1994 (2) PLJR 612 (Dattaray Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors.) and 2003 (2) PLJR 331 (Ram Shankar Bhagat v. The State of Bihar)