Under Section 59, the Commissioner cannot entertain revision before the Deputy Commissioner first decides it.

The dispute concerned land measuring approximately 55 decimals in Mouza Mahuara, Godda, originally recorded in the names of Doman Manjhi and others.

Portions of the land were allegedly settled in favour of Habib Alam, the petitioner’s father, through *Kurfanamas* dated 21 February 1935 and 9 May 1936.

The petitioner claimed possession, construction of a house, and recognition of his rights in revenue proceedings.

Respondent No. 7, Mohammad Salahuddin, initiated several proceedings concerning the land, including Miscellaneous Petition No. 03/2022 against Obaid Alam.

In that proceeding, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, by order dated 16 March 2022, directed issuance of a new survey settlement *parcha* in favour of Respondent No. 7 and correction of the *khatiyan*.

The petitioner challenged that order on the ground that the Commissioner had entertained the matter in original jurisdiction, contrary to Section 59 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949.

Whether the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, could entertain and decide Respondent No. 7’s application as a court of first instance under Section 59 of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949?

Whether the Commissioner’s order dated 16 March 2022 directing issuance of a new settlement *parcha* and correction of the *khatiyan* was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside?

The Court applied Section 59(1) of the Santal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, which empowers the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction over cases decided by courts under their control where no appeal lies, subject to the proviso that the Commissioner cannot pass an order on a party’s application until the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner has first heard and decided the matter in revision or appeal.

Section 59 therefore limits the Commissioner to a supervisory/revisional role and does not confer original jurisdiction to adjudicate such applications as the first court.

The Court examined the nature of the impugned proceeding and found that the Commissioner had entertained Respondent No. 7’s application directly and had adjudicated it as the first court, rather than exercising revisional jurisdiction over an order passed by a subordinate authority.

Since Section 59 requires prior consideration and decision by the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner before the Commissioner can act on a party’s application, the Commissioner’s assumption of original jurisdiction exceeded the statutory authority conferred by the provision.

The defect was jurisdictional; consequently, the merits of the rival claims concerning title or possession did not require determination in the writ proceedings.

The order dated 16 March 2022, directing issuance of a new survey settlement *parcha* and correction of the *khatiyan*, was set aside.

The parties were granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances, and the writ petition was allowed.