S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Which is the appropriate forum for the exercise of jurisdiction for redemption of usufructuary mortgages under S.12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 , has ultimately come to be the core question in this reference to the Full Bench.

2. The facts would now deserve notice only within the narrow confines of their relevance to the primal issue aforesaid. The proceedings stem from a mortgage executed way back on the 15th of June, 1900, made by Rano wife of Fakira Mandal in favour of Banwari Mandal, predecessor-in-interest of writ petitioners 1 to 4. It is the common case that respondents 1 to 5 preferred an application under S.12 of the said Act before the Anchal Adhikari, Sultanganj, claiming that the mortgage stood wholly redeemed on the expiry of a period of seven years from the date of its execution and, therefore, prayed for the restitution of possession to them. It would appear that the Anchal Adhikari issued notice in the matter to the opposite party and fixed 17th December, 1975, for hearing, and on the said date without giving any opportunity to the opposite party to file any rejoinder or lead evidence or produce documents, he heard the parties and ordered that the land should be restored to respondents 1 to 5. Somewhat curiously he thereafter ordered that the record of the case be sent to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector for approval. The writ petitioners thereafter appeared before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and produced numerous documents before him. But on the 26th of May, 1976, he proceeded to pass a cryptic order stating that he affirmed the order of the Anchal Adhikari. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioners on the basis of erroneous legal advice preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur, who, however, merely filed the same on the ground that he was not entitled to hear it and the Collector of the district was only competent to do so. The writ petitioners then preferred a revision before the Collector, Bhagalpur (vide Annexure - 4), who proceeded to summarily reject the same on the ground that it had not been presented within 30 days from the date of the order. Pushed from pillar to post, the writ petitioners preferred another revision in the Court of the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, who again rejected it on the ground of limitation holding that no adequate reason for taking shelter under S.5 of the Limitation Act arose.

3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners whilst ignoring the ancillary issue of condonation of the alleged delay has rightly pressed the focal point that the entire proceedings initiated before the Anchal Adhikari and his recommendation to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector for approval were void ab initio being wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Now inevitably taking the first thing first in the context of the frontal challenge that the whole proceedings herein from their very inception were void ab initio and virtually non est in view of the patent infraction of the mandatory statutory provisions, all other ancillary issues would pale into peripheral insignificance. It is, therefore, apt and indeed inevitable to examine this question at the very threshold rather than deviate into matters which would become irrelevant if the said question has to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the writ petitioners.

5. The relevant provision herein is obviously Sec.12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. One may, therefore, at the very outset read the relevant part of Sec.12 :

"12. Usufructuary mortgages and their redemption - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or anything having the force of law or in any agreement, the principal amount and all dues in respect of an usufructuary mortgage relating to any agricultural land, whether executed before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been fully satisfied and mortgage