Ajoy Kumar Das vs Matisara Devi and Others

Dr. J.N. Bhatt, C.J.—By this Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the review order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector, Siwan, dated, 1.2.1983 in Appeal No. 170 of 1981-82 and confirmed by the revisional authority i.e. Commissioner, Saran Division, dated, 29.6.1988 in Mutation Case No. 121 of 1982-83. The petitioner had preferred an application u/s 89 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 ("Tenancy Act") as he was ousted from the disputed land bearing R.S. Plot No. 545 covering an area of 3 Bighas, 11 kathas, 16 dhurs and R.S. Plot No. 621 having an area of 3 kathas, 5 dhurs under R.S. Khata No. 129 of village Parshurampur tola, Lohgajar, District Siwan leaving tauzi No. 194 for recording his name in the Jamabandi and not to get him ejected. Section 89 of the Tenancy Act prescribes that no tenant shall be ejected from his tenancy or any portion thereof except in execution of a decree. This application was heard by Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) and he allowed the same. Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the said decision filed a review application which came to be allowed by the LRDC. The petitioner, herein, challenged the order of the LRDC before the Additional Collector who, having held that there is no review power with the LRDC, allowed the appeal and set aside the reviewed order of the LRDC. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred a review application before the appellate authority. The Additional Collector reviewed the earlier order against which the petitioner went in revision before the Commissioner, inter alia, contending that the appellate authority had no power to review its earlier order. The Revisional Court found favour with the petitioner, therefore, revision came to be dismissed.

It is in this context, petitioner has challenged this order by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsels for the parties offered their submission. Facts are examined. Relevant proposition of law is considered and impugned orders are also evaluated. Other side has not been able to show that there has been any provision for review of the decision of the revenue authority. It is well settled principles of law that review power can only be exercised by the authority to decide that case provided there is statutory provisions for review.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no such review provision in the Tenancy Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the State has not been able to show any provision that re-view is maintainable. It is in this context, this Court is left with no option but to allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the re view order of the appellate authority, further challenged before the revisional authority. Accordingly, this petition is allowed Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.