1. Heard counsel for the parties who have advanced their arguments on the point of jurisdiction of the Circle Officer, Land Reforms Deputy Collector as well as the Commissioner in view of the provisions of Section 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘the aforesaid Act’ of 1973).

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing the order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh the respondent no. 2 in Jamabandi cancellation Revision no. 2/2002 (Annexure-7) a case of second revision in mutation matter whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, the respondent no. 3 in Misc. No. 49/98 (Annexure-6) has been set aside and the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ramgarh, the respondent no. 4 (Annexure-4) has been affirmed. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and without consideration of law and facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order dated 16.04.2002 (Annexure-7).

3. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the impugned order dated 16.04.2002 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division in Jamabandi Cancellation Revision Case No. 2/2002 submits that under the provisions of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act, revision lies before the Collector of the District and the Collector of the District is the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, he submits that the order of revision which has been passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag is without jurisdiction. He submits that earlier there was a provision for second revision under Section 17 of the Act which was omitted by the Act 3 of 1983.

4. Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand does not dispute the submission of the petitioner the revision is not maintainable before the Commissioner and the competent authority is the Collector of the District i.e. Deputy Commissioner. Counsel appearing for the respondent-state submits that the application which was filed before the Circle Officer was for issuance of rent receipts and was neither for cancellation of jamabandi nor for mutation, and the same should have be disposed of by the Circle Officer in accordance with law.

5. Counsel for the private respondent submits that the order which was impugned before the Commissioner was passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribag who was not the appellate authority under the provisions of Section 15 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 and further he submits that if the order passed by the learned Commissioner is set aside then this would revive another order passed by the Additional Collector which is also without jurisdiction. He further submits that application in connection with mutation is to be filed before the Circle Officer and it is to be disposed of by the said authority against which appeal lies before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the revision lies before the Collector. He submits that in the instant case, the Circle Officer instead of passing the order himself as per the provision of section 14 of the aforesaid Act of 1973 referred the matter to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector passed the original order, although the Circle Officer is the authority who has to pass the original order. Against this, the private respondent had no option and they filed revision before the Commissioner.

6. Counsel for the parties do not dispute that the application in connection with mutation/payment of rent/ issuance of rent receipts has to be filed before the Circle Officer and has to be disposed of by the said authority, but counsel for the private respondent submits that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the Circle Officer and the appropriate remedy is to file civil suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

7