Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 4.2.2004 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in Case No. 8/Urban Land Ceiling (Ranchi)-18/2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one late Lakshmi Narain Jaiswal and late Ram Narain Jaiswal constituted a Joint Hindu Family which had several joint family businesses and had acquired several landed and building properties situated at different places including 4.150 acres of land comprised within Plot No. 1793, Holding No. 522 (Old 284) at Mouja-Siram (commonly known as Village-Hindpiri) which was popularly known as Sethia Land, acquired from the income derived from Joint Family business (M/s. Lakshmi Narain Ram Narain). The said properties were purchased on 20.11.1958 in the name of Sheo Narain Jaiswal who was the eldest son in the family, but, the acquisition was out of the income of the Joint Family business (M/s. Lakshmi Narain Ram Narain) and, therefore, each of the co-sharers had equal share in the said property. Subsequently, Lakshmi Narain Jaiswal died leaving behind six sons namely (i) Sheo Narain Jaiswal, (ii) Uma Shankar Jaiswal, (iii) Prabhu Shankar Jaiswal (since deceased) (iv) Kuldip Narain Jaiswal, (v) Jagat Narain Jaiswal, and (vi) Ranjit Singh Jaiswal (since deceased). Ram Narain Jaiswal died leaving behind four sons namely (i) Kripa Shankar Jaiswal, (ii) Girija Shankar Jaiswal, (iii) Deo Narain, and (iv) Sangram Singh Jaiswal (since deceased). Thus, there were 10 co-sharers of the properties each having 1/10th share in the Sethia Land described hereinabove. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was adopted and enforced in the State of Bihar with effect from 1.4.1976. Accordingly, as required by Section 6 of the Act, all the co-sharers filed their respective statements in which each of them claimed 1/10th share of the Sethia Land as belonging to them for the purposes of computation of vacant land, if any. On the statement filed under Section 6 of the Act by the aforesaid ten co-sharers, different cases were registered, the details whereof is as follows:-

Suddenly, in the second week of August 2004, the petitioner was shocked to learn that the respondent no. 4-Sheo Narain Jaiswal was proclaiming himself to be the sole owner of the entire Sethia land. Thereupon, the petitioner made enquiry from the office of the Hon'ble Minister (the respondent no. 2) and learnt that the respondent no. 2 had unilaterally called for the records of all the aforementioned 10 Land Ceiling Cases and passed the impugned order dated 4.2.2004.

2. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 representing the State Government is only the revisional authority conferred with power under Section 34 of the Act to consider the revision suo moto or otherwise against any final statement prepared by the competent authority under the Act. However, the respondent no. 2 does not have any power to assume the jurisdiction of the original authority and cannot pass any order in the form of final statement as provided under Section 9 of the Act. The manner in which the respondent no. 2 called for the statement relating to Urban Land Ceiling Case No. 266/76 from the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-cum-competent authority under the Act and proceeded to decide the issue himself is completely without jurisdiction, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 263.

3. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the State. J.C. to learned S.C. (L&C) however, submits that the Hon'ble Minister (the respondent no. 2) has exercised the power conferred under Section 34 of the Act and acted on behalf of the State as revisional authority. The respondent no. 2 noticed all the concerned persons including the petitioner and called for the origin