Hari Lal Agrawal, J. - At the admission stage itself we have heard the learned Advocates for the parties at full length and with their consent we are disposing of this application at this very stage.

2. The question involved in this case is a pure question of law, as to whether the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no. 3) who passed the impugned ORDER :(Annexure-1) exercising the powers under section 12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act read with the rules framed there-under, can be said to be 'collector' within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act or not?

3. The petitioner had advanced loans on the basis of registered Zarpeshgi deed to respondent no. 4 in respect of 2 kathas 10 dhurs of his land situated -in Ramgarhwa Anchal. After the expiry of the period of seven years from the date of the mortgage, respondent no. 4 applied before respondent no. 3 for delivery of possession of the land to him, which has been allowed by the ORDER :(Annexure 1) and the appeal therefrom was dismissed by respondent no. 2 by his ORDER :contained in Annexure 2.

4. The argument is based upon the observation made by a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Baikunth Mandal and others v. Sunder Mand