Revisional jurisdiction under Section 16 lies exclusively with the District Collector, not the Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner claimed succession, possession, and raiyati rights over certain lands in Village Chengra, Hazaribagh, which were recorded in the revisional survey records as “Zirat” and “Bakast” land in the name of Tukan Mahto and others.

The Circle Officer, after considering the revenue records and reports, directed that rent be accepted from the petitioner; the Land Reforms Deputy Collector affirmed this position, and the Additional Collector dismissed respondent no. 5’s appeal on 12.10.2000.

Respondent no. 5 thereafter filed a revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division. The revision was initially dismissed for default on 03.09.2002.

The Commissioner ultimately passed the impugned order dated 04.11.2003 in Zamabandi Cancellation Revision No. 97/2000, cancelling the petitioner’s zamabandi.

1. Whether the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, had jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to entertain and decide the revision against the revenue orders?

2. Whether the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s zamabandi was vitiated by violation of natural justice because the restoration and revision proceedings proceeded without valid service of notice upon the petitioner?

3. Whether the Commissioner could pass a final order in the revision without first restoring the revision application that had been dismissed for default?

The Court applied Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973: mutation proceedings lie before the Circle Officer under Section 14, an appeal lies before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector under Section 15, and revisional jurisdiction under Section 16 is vested in the Collector of the district, not the divisional Commissioner.

Section 16 also requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an order modifying, altering, or setting aside an earlier order is passed.

The Court further applied the principles governing substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely that substituted service is a measure of last resort and can be ordered only after the court records satisfaction that ordinary service has failed or that the concerned party is avoiding service.

In this regard, the Court relied on Smt. Yallawwa v. Smt. Shantavva, AIR 1997 SC 35.

The Court held that the statutory scheme clearly allocated revisional jurisdiction to the Collector of the district under Section 16 of the 1973 Act. Since the impugned revision was entertained and decided by the Commissioner, who had no statutory authority under that provision, the order was without jurisdiction.

Independently, the Court found that the petitioner had not been validly served in the restoration proceedings. The address was allegedly incorrect, the record did not disclose proper service reports or satisfaction regarding avoidance of service, and substituted service was adopted without compliance with the safeguards under Order V Rule 20 CPC.

The Court also noted that the original revision had been dismissed for default and that no proper restoration had preceded the final decision cancelling the petitioner’s zamabandi.

These jurisdictional and procedural defects rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable.

It further held that the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity of hearing because notice was not duly served and substituted service was improperly invoked.

Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, in Zamabandi Cancellation Revision No. 97/2000 was quashed.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of; any pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.