- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved against the judgement dated 29.06.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1565 of 2008 whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous Revision No. 158 of 2005.
(3.) It will be appropriate to place on record facts in brief :- The appellants' claimed that, by virtue of a settlement of land in favour of the appellants, their names were required to be entered in the revenue record/in record of rights to be maintained under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. However, for the said claim of settlement of 8 th September, 1925, the appellants' submitted an application No. 37/1961-62 on 27.01.1961 upon which the appellants' names were entered into the revenue records. The appellants continued to pay the rent till the year 1967-68. After 1968, the revenue authorities refused to accept the rent from the appellants. The appellants, in the year 1998, came to know that in the Jamabandi, the name of the respondents have been wrongly entered and because of that reason the revenue authorities are not accepting the rent from the appellants. Finding this wrong entry in Jamabandi, the appellants submitted an application before the Circle Officer in the year 1998 and that application was in fact, for deletion of the wrong entry of the names of the respondents but was considered as application for mutation under Section 14 of the Act of 1973. Said application was dismissed by the Circle Officer on 08.11.1998. According to learned counsel for the appellants, against this rejection order, no appeal was preferred by the appellants but according to learned counsel for the private respondents in fact appeal was preferred by the appellants against the order dated 08.11.1998 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms who rejected the appeal also. Be that as it may be, in either case the order of rejection of the appellants' application for deletion of names of respondents dated 08.11.1998 attained finality. The appellants then submitted an application before the Additional Collector for the same reliefs and the Additional Collector by order dated 22.12.2004 set aside the order of the Circle Officer dated 08.11.1998 and directed that appellants' names may be entered in the revenue record and the Circle Officer was directed to accept the rent from the appellants. According to appellants, aggrieved against the order dated 22.12.2004, a review application was filed by the respondents before the same authority, the Additional Collector. The successor Additional Collector allowed the said review application and set aside the order dated 22.12.2004 by order dated 27.10.2005. Aggrieved against the order dated 27.10.2005, a revision petition was submitted before the Commissioner by the present appellants. Learned Commissioner allowed the revision petition vide order dated 19.02.2008 and held that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order dated 22.12.2004 and, therefore, set aside the review order dated 27.10.2005 restoring the order dated 22.12.2004 by which the names of the respondents stand deleted from the revenue record. Against the order passed in revision by the Commissioner dated 19.02.2008, the respondents preferred present writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1565 of 2008 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the orders dated 19.02.2008 and order dated 22.12.2004 both were set aside. According to learned Single Judge the Additional Collector could not have entertained revisions under Section 16 of the Act of 1973 which lies before Collector of the District under Section 16. The Additional Collector also could not have heard the application as appeal because appeal against against the said order could have been before Land Reform Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.). Therefore, the order dated 22.12.2004 of the Additional Collector was wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge also held that the order dated 22.12.2004 was passed exparte and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents and when correct law was brought to knowledge of the learned Additional Collector, the Additional Collector passed the order dated 27.10.2005 and rectified the order dated 22.12.2004. Learned Single Judge, therefore, held that, in this legal position the Commissioner should not have entertained the revision petition and set aside the order dated 19 th February, 2008 passed by the Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous Revision No. 158 of 2005.;