S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

A veiled doubt about the correctness of the Division bench Judgment in Sri Kalut Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar and others (1980 BBCJ 373) had originally necessitated this reference to the Full Bench at the threshold stage of admission. That issue has, however, been totally eclipsed and what now comes to the force is the question whether a Second revision is still maintainable in mutation proceedings despite the repeal of section 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 by virtue of Bihar Ordinance 62 of 1982 and the subsequent Bihar Act, of 1983 ?

2. The facts, which deserve notice for the purpose of the pristine legal issue aforesaid, lie in a narrow compass. Shorn of details, these are that petitioner no. 1. Ram Gandhra Ram, applied before the Anchal Achikari, Kodarma, for the mutation of 1.38 acres of land in village Moriawan. On that basis, Mutation Case No. 29 of 1977-78 was started and in the subsequent proceedings the Anchal Adhikari allowed the mutation of the said land is favour of the petitioners. Respondent no. 5, Shrimati India Devi wife of Akal Ram preferred Mutation Appeal no. 11 of 1977 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Kodarma, who allowed the same (vide annexure 5). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner no.1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, who in turn allowed the same and set aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Respondent no. 5 India Devi, then filed a second revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, which was registered as Mutation Revision no. 14 of 1983. By a detailed order of the 2nd of August, 1983 the Commissioner (vide annexure 7) allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Collector. The primal challenge in this writ petition is to the very maintainability of the second revision before the Commissioner.

3. The solitary – though forceful – contention of Mr. N.K. Prasad is that at the material time in 1983, the second revision to the Commissioner was no longer competent in view of the repeal of section 17 of the Bihar Tenants, Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 by virtue of the earlier Ordinance no. 62 of 1982 and the subsequent enactment of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Act, 1982.

4. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a brief retrospect of the provisions governing the appeals and revisions in the specific field of mutation proceedings. It will appear that prior to 1983 this arena was not covered by any Act, of the legislature of statutory rules framed thereunder. In the absence thereof it seems common ground that the instructions for the disposal of mutation cases as contained in the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar letter no. EXXIV-305/63-101 LR dated the 4/7th January, 1963 governed the proceedings. Curiously enough, learned counsel for the parties were somewhat ambivalent about the statutory source of these instructions whether they emanated by virtue of section 13 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, or flowed from the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules. Be that as it may, the relevant para 10 of the said instructions was in the terms following.

“10. Appeals.—An appeal should be filed against the order of the Anchal Adhikari within an period of 30 days from the date of the order; a revision petition will lie before the Collector or the Additional Collector within a period of 60 days from the date of the appellate order; a second revision may be entertained by the Divisional Commissioner within a period of 60 days from the date of the order passed by the Collector or the Additional Collector provided the Commissioner is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for entertaining a second revision petition.”

5. However, in the year 1973 the matter was sought to be given statutory foundation by the enactment of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to