S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) A veiled doubt about the correctness of the Division Bench Judgment in Sri Kalot Chowdhary v/s. The state of Bihar and others(1980 BBCJ 373) had originally necessitated this reference to the Full Bench at the threshold stage of admission. That issue has, however, been totally eclipsed and what now comes to the force is the question whether a second revision is still maintainable in mutation proceedings despite the repeal of Sec. 17of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973,by virtue of Bihar Ordinance 62 of 1982 and the subsequent Bihar Act 3 of 1983 The facts, which deserve notice for the purpose of the pristine legal issue aforesaid, lie in a narrow compass. Shorn of details, these are that petitioner no. 1 Ram Chandra Ram, applied before the Anchal Adhikari, Kodarma, for the mutation of 1.38 acres of land in village Moriawan. On that basis, Mutation Case no. 29 of 1977 -78 was started and in, the subsequent - proceedings, the Anchal Adhikari allowed the mutation of the said land in favour of the petitioners. Respondent no. 5, Shrimati Indira Devi wife of Akal Ram preferred Mutation Appeal no. 11 of 1977 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Kodarma who allowed the same (vide annexure 5). Aggrieved thereby, petitioner no. 1 preferred a revision before the Additional Collector. Hajaribagh, who in turn allowed the same and set aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Respondent no. 5 Indira Devi, then filed a second revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, which was registered as Mutation Revision no. 14 of 1983. By a detailed order of the 2nd of August, 1983 the Commissioner (vide annexure 7) allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Additional Collector. The primal challenge in this writ petition is to the very maintainability of the second revision before Commissioner.
(2.) The solitary though forceful contention of Mr. N.K. Prasad is that at the material time in 1983, the second revision to the Commissioner was no longer competent in view of the repeal of Sec. 17 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act 1973 by virtue of the earlier Ordinance no. 62 of 1982 and the subsequent enactment of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) (Amendment) Act, 1982.
(3.) To appreciate -the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a brief retrospect of the provisions governing the appeals and revisions in the specific filed of mutation proceedings. It will appear that prior to 1983 this arena was not covered by any act of the legislature or statutory rules framed thereunder. In the absence thereof it seems common ground that the instruction for the disposal of mutation cases as contained in the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar letter to EXXIV -305/63 -101 LR dated the 4/7th January, 1963 governed the proceedings. Curiously enough, learned counsel for the parties were somewhat ambivalent about the statutory source of these instructions whether they emanated by virtue of Sec. 13 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or flowed from the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules. Be that as it may, the relevant para 10 of the said instructions was in the terms following. 10. Appeals. -An appeal should be filed against the order of the Anchal Adhikari within a period of 30 days from the date of the order; a revision petition will lie before the Collector or the Additional Collector within a period of 60 days from the date of the appellate order; a second revision may be entertained by the, Divisional Commissioner within a period of 60 days from the date of the order passed by the Collector or the Additional Collector provided the Commissioner is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for entertaining a second revision petition.;