The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that as per Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 the power of revision is vested upon the Collector of the District and not on the Commissioner of the Division.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner purchased land via a registered sale deed, got his name mutated, and continued to pay rent. Later on, all of a sudden Jamabandi Cancellation Case was initiated against the Petitioner by the L.R.D.C. and the L.R.D.C. forwarded the file to the Office of Additional Collector. The Additional Collector confirmed the jamabandi of the petitioner. The order was challenged and revision was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Respondents again filed a revision against the Petitioner before the commissioner. The Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the said act of the Commissioner in entertaining the revision without any jurisdiction as under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is the Revisional Authority under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Sunita Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, and Chitranjan Das Mahto & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the order passed by the commissioner is without jurisdiction as under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, it is the Collector who can entertain the revision and the Collector means the Deputy Commissioner and not the Commissioner.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that according to the plain meaning of Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Collector of the District, not the Commissioner of the Division, is the one with the authority to make revisions.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the Commissioner, had committed a gross illegality in entertaining and passing the final order in Cancellation Revision.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Sikandar Jahan V. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.5180 of 2016
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondents: Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC (MINES) I Mr. Satyam Parmar, AC to SC VI
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :