The Collector's jurisdiction under section 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is limited to correcting bona fide or material errors in the record of rights and does not extend to adjudicating disputed questions of title or possession.

S. B. Sinha, J.-This writ application is directed against an order dated 29.9.1988 passed by respondent no. 3 as contained in Annexure-8 to this writ application in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 90 of the C. N. T. Act and thereby rectifying an alleged error in the finally published record of rights in respect of plot nos. 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356 and 357 of the Mouza Dimna, P. S. Mango, Dist-Singhbhum.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. Admittedly by reason of a sale deed dated 25.6.1965, the father of the petitioner, late S. N. Iyer purchased 4 big has of land out of the aforementioned plots and came in possession thereof. Allegedly the father of the petitioner and after his death the petitioner have been in possession of the entire 12 bighas of the land belonging to the predecessor in the interest of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 and acquired title in relation thereto by adverse possession.

4. Admittedly, in village Dimna, the survey settlement operations in terms of Chapter XII of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, were initiated. In the said survey settlement operations the plot nos. as indicated hereinbefore were renumbered as 1730, 1732, 1735, 1740 1741 and 1742 in the finally published record of rights. III tae finally published record of rights dated 10.8.1979 the name of the petitioners were recorded therein.

5. On or about 16.9.1984, the respondents no. 4 to 6 being the sucessors in interest of the late V. C. Rivett, the vendor of the petitioner's father filed art application before the respondent no. 3 for correcting the error allegedly crept in the of, aforementioned record of rights in terms of section 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. By reason of the impugned order dated 29.9.1988 the said application has been allowed.

6. Mr. M. Y. Eqbal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question. According to the learned counsel the jurisdiction of Collector under the said Act in terms of section 90 thereof is a limited one and while exercising a power under section 90 of the said Act, he cannot embark upon an inquiry into the disputed question of title and possession. In support of his aforementioned contention, Mr. Epbal relied upon an unreported decision of the Court in Mewalal Nigam vs. The State of Bihar and others, in C. W. J. C. C. no. 1001/83 (R) disposed of on 4th February 1988 and order dated 3.7.1987 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sisir Kumar Sarkar vs. The State of Bihar, in C. W. J. C. no. 1855/86, (R) Relying on the aforementioned decisions Mr. M.Y. Eqbal submitted that respondent nos. 4 to 6 could have filed a civil suit if they intended to challenge the title or possession of the petitioner in respect of the 8 bighas of land which they have acquired by prescription hut the application under section 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was not maintainable.

7. Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, on the other hand, submitted that from a plain reading of section 90 of the Act it would appear that the respondent no. 3 was delegated with the power to adjudicate upon an application filed under section-90 of the Act and was thus empowered to correct any material manifest error occuring in the record of rights. According to the learned counsel, in this case, a manifest error has occurred, In view of the fact that admittedly the father of the petitioner by reason of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 25.6.1965 (Annexure B contained in the counter affidavit) purcha5cd only 4 bighas of land and not the entire 12 bighas of land Learned counsel further submits that the revenue authorities while preparing the record of rights could not have considered the question as to whether the petitioners have acquired a title by adverse possession or not and in this view of the matter the respondent no. 3 was competent to pass the impugned order as contained in Annexure-