JUDGMENT :

1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 as also the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Khunti in Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012 have been questioned.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that against the order passed by the original authority, the appeal has been filed after lapse of 29 years for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the original authority, which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the appellate authority passed in Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 has preferred a revision by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1973’) which confers power upon the Collector to exercise power of revision but the revision has been decided by the Additional Collector by confirming the order passed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.02.2013 passed in Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012 and as such, the order passed by the Additional Collector, is not sustainable in the eye of law due to lack of inherent jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.P-III for the State of Jharkhand has not disputed the aforesaid legal position rather he has submitted by referring to the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1973 that the Collector of the district has been conferred to exercise the power of revision.

5. Mr. Rohitashya Roy as also Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the writ petitioner himself has chosen to file revision application before the Additional Collector, therefore, after submitting an application before the Additional Collector, the writ petitioner cannot take the ground of jurisdiction and in that view of the matter the ground agitated by the writ petitioner about lack of inherent jurisdiction may not be entertained.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The undisputed fact herein is that the matter pertains to the mutation of the land in question. The order for mutation has been passed by the original authority in favour of the writ petitioner. The private respondents being aggrieved with the said order had preferred appeal before the appellate authority being Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 but the appellate authority has quashed and set aside the order passed by the original authority against which the writ petitioner had preferred revision before the Additional Collector, Khunti being Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012, which has been dismissed by confirming the order passed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.02.2013, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

The sole ground has been taken by the petitioner that the Additional Collector has not been conferred with power to exercise the power of revision under Section 16 of the Act, 1973, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector being nullity, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that once the revision has been filed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, he cannot be allowed to question the jurisdiction of the order passed by the Additional Collector.

9. It is evident from the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1973, which stipulates about the power of revision which has been vested upon the Collector of the district, which shall be exercised on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as per the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine