The main legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'Collector' under Section 16 of the Act refers specifically to the Collector of the District, and the Additional Collector does not have the jurisdiction to exercise power under section 16 in a land revenue dispute.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.3.2002, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Jamui Revision Case No. 18 of 1997-98 as well as the order dated 7.1.1998, passed by the Additional Collector, Jarnui in Revision Case No. 25 of 1997-98 which has been preferred by respondent nos. 6 to 9.

3. This matter relates to creation of jamabandi with respect to the land of Khata No. 27 Plot no. 313 measuring 4.50 acres and Plot no. 314 measuring 0.33 acres.

4. Petitioners case is that the land was settled in favour of Shiv Prasad Chaturvedi the grand father of the petitioner, his name was entered in Register-II and he continued to pay rent with respect to the land and receiving rent receipts (Annexure-1 series). Respondents 6 to 9 in the year 1995 filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Jamui under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973 for fixing land revenue in their name and for issuance of rent receipts. The respondents opted for a wrong forum as under the Act the Circle Officer of the area is vested to exercise jurisdiction under section 14 of the Act. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms rejected the claim of respondents and the jamabandi which was running in the name of the petitioner continued. Against this order respondents preferred Revision Case No. 25, 1997-98 before the Additional Collector, Jamui which according to the petitioner, was decided ex-parte in favour of the respondents without any notice to the petitioner. Against the order passed by the revisionai authority dated 7.1.1998 petitioner preferred second revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 17 of the Act which has been dismissed on the ground that power of revision under section 17 of the Act has been deleted and now the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to exercise the revisionai power.

5. The objection raised by the petitioner is that the revisionai order passed by the Additional Collector in Rev. No. 25 of 1997-98 is without jurisdiction as under Section 16 of the Act only the Collector of the district can exercise revisionai jurisdiction and the Additional Collector has not been vested with the jurisdiction to exercise power under section 16 of the Act. He has relied on the decision of this court reported in 2000(3) P.L.J.R. 839 and 1972 P.L.J.R. 404 wherein it has been decided that the power under section 16 of the Act can be exercised only by the Collector of the District as mentioned in the section itself.

6. Counsel appearing for the respondents has disputed the submission made by the petitioner. According to him under Section 2(c) of the Act, the Collector also includes Additional Collector and thus if the revisionai jurisdiction has been exercised by the Additional Collector, there is no illegality and it cannot be quashed on this ground that the Additional Collector could not have exercised jurisdiction under section 16 of the Act.

7. I find that the submission made by the counsel appearing for the respondent is not correct. Under Section 2(c) of the Act the word "Collector" also includes the Additional Collector and the power vested to the Collector under the Act can be exercised also by the Additional Collector. So far the language of Section 16 is concerned, it has specifically been mentioned that the Collector of the district will exercise jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act. When the word Collector has been specified under Section 16 as the Collector of the District in that case the Additional Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction under section 16 of the Act and any order which has been passed by the Additional Collector as the revisionai authority is illegal, without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed.

8. Accordingly I find that order passed by the D.C.L.R. in Case No. 2 of 1995-96 as well as the order passed by the Additional Collec