GEETIKA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned AC to SC-4 appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Initially, the petitioners had filed the present writ petition with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the respondent District Collector, Samastipur in Mutation Revision Case No. 46 of 2014, as contained in Annexure-3, whereby the operation of the final order dated 15.7.2014 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 93 of 2013 by the respondent Additional Collector, Samastipur, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was stayed and notices were issued to the petitioners to appear in the matter with their show cause, so that a fresh final order is passed by him. During the pendency of the present writ petition, a fresh final order has been passed by the District Collector, Samastipur in aforesaid Case No. 46 of 2014 setting aside the final revisional order dated 15.7.2014 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 93 of 2014 by the respondent Additional Collector, Samastipur; and, therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 1353 of 2015 seeking permission to challenge the validity and correctness of the aforesaid final order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the District Collector, Samastipur, which has been brought on the record as Annexure-4 to the aforesaid I.A. No. 1353 of 2015. In the given facts of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased the lands in question through different registered sale deeds, which have been brought on the record as Annexure-1 series to the writ petition and details of the lands have been given in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid purchases made by the petitioners, besides others, they filed a petition before the respondent Circle Officer, Samastipur for mutation of their names with respect to the lands in question, which gave rise to Mutation Case No. 129 of 2010-11, but the prayer for mutation made on behalf of the petitioners, besides others, was finally rejected by the order dated 24.1.2011, as contained in Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners, besides others, being aggrieved by the aforesaid original order 24.1.2011 (Annexure-5), preferred Mutation Appeal No. 210 of 2011 before the respondent D.C.L.R., Samastipur, but that was also finally rejected by the order dated 26.6.2013, as contained in Annexure-6 to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, preferred Mutation Revision No. 93 of 2013 under Section 8 of The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (in short 'Act, 2011'), which was finally heard and allowed by the respondent Additional Collector, Samastipur vide order dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure-2) and a direction was issued to the Anchal Adhikari, Samastipur to create Jamabandi in the name of the petitioners and issue rent receipts in their favour. It is contended that the aforesaid order dated 15.7.2014 passed in Mutation Revision Case No. 93 of 2013 has attained its finality as neither the State of Bihar nor any other interested persons have assailed its validity and correctness either before the learned Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna or before this Court, but the respondent District Collector, on the basis of some complaints filed by some persons, initiated fresh Mutation Revision Case No. 46 of 2014 and by his original order dated 22.10.2014 stayed the operation of the order passed by the respondent Additional Collector, Samastipur, and now, by the impugned final order dated 22.11.2014 (Annexure-4 to the I.A. No. 1353 of 2015), he has set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Samastipur in Mutation Revision Case No. 93 of 2013. It is pleaded by the learned Senior counsel that under the scheme of the Act, 2011, there is no power of review vested in the District Collector. The power of revision is vested concurrently in the District Collector and the Additional Collector of the District in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 2011. The concurrent jurisdiction of revision can be exercised either by the District Collector or by the Additional Collector of the district, but once the final order is passed by the revisional authority, then power of review is not vested in either of the authority. Therefore, according to him, the fresh final order dated 22.11.2014 passed by the District Collector, Samastipur, as contained in Annexure-4 to the I.A. 1353 of 2015 is wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and is fit to be set aside by this Court.