Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The present is a case under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and in view of Section 18 of the Act the provisions in regard to appeal, review and revision, under this Act are the same as provided under Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Section 84 provides for revisional jurisdiction and reads as under : -

"84. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers or Revenue Courts : -(1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court subordinate to him;

10. As would be seen from the facts of the present case that an appeal was filed before the Commissioner by the CoHector of the District through Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, against an order of the Collector, Agrarian. After remand of the case the Commissioner did not decide the appeal as such but came to the opinion that the order of the Collector, Agrarian, was illegal and required modification that he referred the case to the Financial Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The contention of S. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal was incompetent as not having been filed by a proper person or the same was time barred needs no consideration for the simple reason that the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, referred to above. The action of the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner ultimately reversing the order of the Collector, Agrarian, cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. The Financial Commissioner was well within his rights when a case was referred by the Commissioner to decide the revision. The appeal filed before the Commissioner was not sine quo non for action to be taken in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is immaterial how the matter came before the Commissioner that he decided to refer the matter to the Financial' Commissioner to take action under the revisional jurisdiction and to quash or modify order of the Collector, Agrarian. The order of the Financial Commissioner passed in the present case thus cannot be questioned for want of jurisdiction on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench in Hardial Singh's case. .