Joseph Topno vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the Deputy

Collector Land Reforms in Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 as also the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Khunti in

Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012 have been questioned.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that against the order passed by the original authority, the appeal has been filed after lapse of 29 years for

quashing and setting aside the order passed by the original authority, which has been dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2012. The writ petitioner being

aggrieved with the order passed by the appellate authority passed in Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 has preferred a revision by invoking the

jurisdiction conferred under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1973')

which confers power upon the Collector to exercise power of revision but the revision has been decided by the Additional Collector by confirming the

order passed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.02.2013 passed in Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012 and as such, the order

passed by the Additional Collector, is not sustainable in the eye of law due to lack of inherent jurisdiction.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.P-III for the State of Jharkhand has not disputed the aforesaid legal position rather he has submitted by referring to

the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1973 that the Collector of the district has been conferred to exercise the power of revision.

Mr. Rohitashya Roy as also Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the writ petitioner himself has chosen

to file revision application before the Additional Collector, therefore, after submitting an application before the Additional Collector, the writ petitioner

cannot take the ground of jurisdiction and in that view of the matter the ground agitated by the writ petitioner about lack of inherent jurisdiction may

not be entertained.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The undisputed fact herein is that the matter pertains to the mutation of the land in question. The order for mutation has been passed by the original

authority in favour of the writ petitioner. The private respondents being aggrieved with the said order had preferred appeal before the appellate

authority being Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2012-13 but the appellate authority has quashed and set aside the order passed by the original authority

against which the writ petitioner had preferred revision before the Additional Collector, Khunti being Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012,

which has been dismissed by confirming the order passed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.02.2013, against which the present writ

petition has been filed.

The sole ground has been taken by the petitioner that the Additional Collector has not been conferred with power to exercise the power of revision

under Section 16 of the Act, 1973, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector being nullity, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

On the other hand learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that once the revision has been filed by the petitioner before the

Additional Collector, he cannot be allowed to question the jurisdiction of the order passed by the Additional Collector.

It is evident from the provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1973, which stipulates about the power of revision which has been vested upon the

Collector of the district, which shall be exercised on an application made to him in this behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as per the legality

or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any authority or officer call for and examine the order of any case

pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit.

Thus, it is evident that the Collector of the district is conferred with the power of revision under the statute.

Although, the admitted fact is that the writ petitioner himself has chosen to prefer revision before the Additional Collector, Khunti. But, even accepting

the opposition on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, since the writ petitioner has chosen to approach before the

Additional Collector, therefore, such order cannot be questioned subsequently.

But this Court is not impressed upon such contention as because even if any litigant has approached before the authority who is not conferred with

such power under the statute and on that ground the order cannot be said to be legal and proper, rather the authority even if approached by any

litigant, ought to have rejected such application on the ground of being not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. But having not done so, the

Additional Collector has not only entertained the revision but it has been decided by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the appellate

authority.

There is no dispute about the settled position of law that an order has been passed by the authority having no jurisdiction under the statute, it goes

to the root of the issue and due to lack of jurisdiction such order cannot be sustainable in the eye of law, since herein, under the statute the Collector of

the district has been conferred with the power of revision. Therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector, Khunti in Mutation Revision Case

No.15R15 of 2012 disposed of on 20.02.2013, is held to be without jurisdiction due to lack of inherent power conferred under the statute.

Accordingly, the order dated 20.02.2013 passed in Mutation Revision Case No.15R15 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.

The matter is remitted before the Collector of the district to adjudicate upon the issue by calling upon the record from the original/appellate authority.

Needless to say that while deciding the issue, the revisional authority will provide opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.

It is made clear that the Collector, Khunti will complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of

the order.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone to the merit of issue and the revisional authority shall pass order on its own merit and strictly in

accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the observation made hereinabove.