1. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate, submits that though he was earlier appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7739 of 2006, however, the brief has been taken back by the petitioners and, therefore, he is not in a position to represent the said petitioners. Thus, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7739 of 2006.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Both these writ petitions have been filed for quashing the revisional order dated 14.10.2006 passed in Mutation Revision No. 20 of 2002-03, whereby the respondent no. 3 allowed the revision application of the respondent nos. 6 to 8.

4. For better appreciation of the issue involved, W.P. (C) No. 7106 of 2006 has been taken as a lead case and the petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 7739 of 2006, who are also the proforma respondents in W.P. (C) No. 7106 of 2006 are referred as proforma respondent hereinafter.

5. The factual background of the case is that the respondent nos. 6 to 8 had filed an application for mutation of the land situated at Mouza-Telaiya, Thana No. 244 within Ward No. 4 of Jhumri Telaiya Municipality, District-Koderma under Khata No. 216 (old), 281 (new), Plot No. 3336/3512 (old), 7247 (new), area 4 kathas 8 dhurs (hereinafter referred to as "the land") stating that the same has been purchased by them by registered sale-deed dated 11.9.2001. Thereafter, a general Ishtehar was published inviting objection. The petitioners filed objection to the said application stating that the said land has been recorded in the name of the petitioner's grandmother Chowthi Bai in the Survey and Settlement operations which was finally published on 2.3.1967. The proforma respondents also made objection stating that the said land is a joint property and is in exclusive possession of the proforma respondents as well as Suresh Kumar Jain (vendor) and since there had been no partition, the vendor-Suresh Kumar Jain had no right to sell any part of the property without the consent of the proforma respondents. The respondent no. 5 rejected the mutation application of the respondent nos. 6 to 8 vide order dated 8.3.2002. The respondent nos. 6 to 8 preferred Mutation Appeal No. 2 of 2000-03 which was also dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2003, against which a revision petition vide Mutation Revision No. 20 of 2002-03 was filed before the Additional Collector, Koderma which was allowed directing the respondent no. 5 to create the jamabandi in the name of the respondent nos. 6 to 8.

6. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said land was initially settled by the ex-landlord in favour of the petitioners' grandfather Ladu Lal. The said land was recorded in the Khatian in the name of their grandmother and the Khatian was finally published under the provisions of Section 83(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CNT Act") which has become final. It is further submitted that against any entry in the record of rights, appeal and revision are provided under Section 89 of the CNT Act. Under Section 90, there is a power of review and Section 87 provides for institution of suit before the Revenue Officer. Against the judgment passed in the suit, appeal is provided under Section 87(2) of the CNT Act. It is further submitted that although the Circle Officer had rejected the application for mutation of the name of respondent nos. 6 to 8, he made an observation in the order that the land has been wrongly recorded in the Khatian in the name of Chowthi Bai, was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application in view of Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1973"). It is further submitted that Section 16 of the Act, 1973 confers power only to the Collector to hear the revision against the order passed by the Land Refo