1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.12.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari in Mutation Revision Case No. 18 of 1994- 95, by which he has allowed the revision application filed by respondent no. 6 challenging the order dated 19.7.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sikarahana in Appeal No. 6 of 1993-94, whereby the Deputy Collector Land Reforms allowed the appeal filled by the petitioner and set aside the order of mutation dated 15.12.1993 passed in favour of respondent no. 6 by the Anchal Adhikari, Dhaka in Mutation Case No. 1148 of 1992-93.

3. The dispute between the parties is with regard to 1 bigha 6 katha of land of khata no. 83 Khesra No. 741 in village Barharwa Lakhansen. Respondent no. 6 filed mutation case under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act for mutation of his name against the petitioners. The Anchal Adhikari allowed the mutation case, as stated above, under section 14 of the Act against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms under section 15 of the Act, which was allowed.

4. Respondent no.6 having lost before the appellate authority, instead of filing revision application before the Collector of the district filed revision application before the Additional Collector, Motihari, who allowed the revision application. It appears that before the disposal of the revision application, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector of the district for transfer of the case which was dismissed by the Collector by order dated 3.10.2000 on the ground that the order has already been passed by the Additional Collector and as such there is no question of transferring the case or to rehear the matter on merit.

5. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by filing writ application and before the learned single Judge submitted that under section 16 of the Act the Collector of the District is vested with revisional power and the Additional Collector has no power of revision under said section of the Act and as such the order passed by the Additional Collector, as contained in Annexure-2, is without jurisdiction. In support of his submission, he relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Shankar Shukla V/s. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) PLJR 839 and Mst. Binda Kunwar V/s. State of Bihar, 2001(3) PLJR 54. In the aforesaid two cases it has been held by this Court that under section 16 of the Act the revisional power vests in the Collector of the district only.

6. Learned single Judge disagreed with the law laid down in the aforesaid two cases, as according to him, the Collector of the District also includes Additional Collector specially in view of the definition of the Collector as mentioned in Section 2(c) of the Act and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to place the matter for consideration and authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench on the said point. That is how the matter has been placed before us for decision.

7. The aforesaid Act has been enacted for the maintenance of upto date records of holdings of raiyats in the State of Bihar and the matters connected therewith. Under the definition clause Collector has been defined under section 2(c) of the Act which runs as follows ; 2(c) "Collector" includes an Additional Collector, an Additional Deputy Commissioner and any other officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act.

8. According to the said definition, the Collector includes Additional Collector, Additional Deputy Commissioner and any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector specially empowered by the State Government to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector under the Act. So, unless there is notification