Satyanarayan Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Mahendra Nath Dubey, sl. no. 6 to 7, all sons of late Yugeshwar Dubey, resident of village- Dubey Marhatiya, P.O.- Tildag, P.S.- Garhwa and Dist.- Garhwa

¶13

........... Respondents

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka , Adv. Mr. Ram Kinkar , Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashustosh Anand, Adv. Mr. Baban Prasad, Adv.

¶15

P R E S E N T

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶17

By the Court :- Heard the parties.

¶18

This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuing appropriate writs / orders/ directions for quashing the order dated 12.05.2015, the copy of which is kept at Annexure 6 passed by the Additional Collector, Garhwa (respondent no. 3) in Mutation Revision no. 41 of 2014-15 and also for quashing the order dated

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 3034 of 2015

¶20

1

¶21

13.10.2014 ( Annexure 5) passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa (respondent no. 4) in Mutation Appeal No. 15 of 2010-11.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 12.05.2015 vide Annexure 6 has been passed by the Additional Collector in purported exercise of the power under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 , which reads as under :

¶23

16. Revision .-The Collector of the district may, on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to 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 the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit:

¶24

Provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any person, aggrieved by any order, unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the order;

¶25

Provided further that no order modifying, altering, or setting aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

¶26

It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 16 of the said Act, it is the collector of the District who can exercise the power of revision and under the said section no one else than the Collector of the District, can exercise the power of revision.

¶27

Relying upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Yugal Kishore Prasad & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2022 (2) JBCJ 154 (HC), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a co-ordinate Bench of this court by relying upon several judgments of this Court, has reiterated the settled principle of law that the Additional Collector has no power of revision, under the provisions of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 and in this respect , learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Ratan Lal Mahto & Anr. vs. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 3034 of 2015

¶29

2

¶30

Jharkhand reported in WP (C) No. 623 of 2005 dated 06.03.2018, wherein the co-ordinate Bench also reiterated the settled principle of law that Additional Collector under the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973, cannot exercise the power of revision under Section 16 of the said Act, hence, it submitted that the prayer made by the writ be allowed.

¶31

Learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand, submits that this is a peculiar case where the petitioner herein himself voluntarily filed the Mutation revision no. 41 of 2014-15 before the Additional Collector, Garhwa and after the same was dismissed on merit, now he has come with a plea that he approached a wrong forum.

¶32

But the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 to 9 fairly submits that the Additional Collector does not have the power under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973.

¶33

Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention that true it is that the petitioner has filed a revision before an authority who was not having the jurisdiction to entertain a revision application under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973. It is a settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be vested upon an authority by way of concession when the power of revision itself is a creation of the statute and a particular authority has been vested by the statute, with the power of revision.

¶34

Under such circumstances, in view of the settled principle of law that the Additional Collector cannot exercise the power of revision as envisaged under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 and the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 passed in

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 3034 of 2015

¶36

3

¶37

Mutation Revision no. 41 of 2014-15 by the learned Additional Collector, Garhwa is quashed and set aside.

¶38

So far as the prayer for quashing the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa (respondent no. 4) in Mutation Appeal No. 15 of 2010-11 is concerned, since the petitioner has the alternative remedy of challenging the same before the appropriate revisional authority under Section 16 of Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same at this stage.

¶39

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11^th June, 2024 Smita /AFR

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 3034 of 2015

¶42

4

Satyanarayan Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Dubey v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Zee Laboratories Limited through Its Technical Director Anant Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandeep Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Reena Devi Alias Reena Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

K K College of Engineering and Management through Its Controller of Examinaton Mr Fanindra Bhushan Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill

Sutapa Sarangi Vs Dr Debajyoti Sarangi

Ms Jemco Ltd. Represented through Its Company Secretary Shri Rabi Narayan Kar Vs the State of Jharkhand