R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 2.7.1997 (Annexure 3) passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Revenue Revision No. 57 of 1995 rejecting the revision of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 2.5.1995 (Annexure 2) passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Mutation Appeal Case No. 42 of 1994, by which the appeal filed by respondent No. 6 Tisco Limited was allowed and the order dated 15.2.1993 passed in Rent Assessment Case No. 145 of 1992 -93 by the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, Hazaribagh assessing Korkar rent under Section 67 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the name of the Petitioner was set aside.
(2.) BY order dated 12 4.2006, Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners did not press this Writ Petition on behalf of the then petitioners No. 2 and 3, namely, Mannu Mahto and Ghannu Mahto and, accordingly, this Writ Petition was dismissed so far as these two Petitioners were concerned. Challenging the impugned order, Mr. Prasad submitted that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, after issuance of general notice, considering the report of the Circle Officer and after the spot verification, allowed the petitioners application for fixation of Korkar rent by order dated 15.2.1993. But in the appeal filed by the Tisco, the said order was set aside on 2.5.1995 (Annexure 2). The petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner but the same was also rejected by order dated 2.7.1997 (Annexure 3).
(3.) MR . Prasad submitted that there were several cases of several persons and without considering the individual case of the petitioner, the order passed in other cases were wrongly applied to the case of the petitioner by the appellate authority the Additional Collector. He further submitted that the Revisional authority should have remanded the matter, if he found that the orders of fixation of rent were bad. He himself should not have decided the matter. He further submitted that Tisco could not file appeal. Only the State Government being the landlord could file appeal. He further submitted that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, Tisco purchased the land from one Dhano Mahto who had no paddy land.;