Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Revision.-(1) The Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may, on his own motion or otherwise, call for the record of a case decided by Court under his control in which an appeal does not lie or in which for cause shown to his satisfaction an appeal has not been preferred within the time limit there for, and may pass such order in the case as he thinks fit: Provided that the Commissioner shall not pass such order on an application by a party until the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, has heard the matter in revision or appeal and passed an order. (2) The Deputy Commissioner may, by order in writing, empower any Sub-divisional Officer under his control to exercise the powers conferred on the Deputy Commissioner by sub-section (1) with respect to the decisions of all or any of the Courts of Deputy Collectors not in charge of a sub-division, under the Control of the Deputy Commissioner. COMMENTS Sections 59- Commissioner has wider jurisdiction in revision and such power can exercise suo moto High Court cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. [karan Murmu v. State of Bihar, 1994 (2) BLJR 993]. Section 59- Deputy Commissioner, of Santal Pargana is competent to exercise the revisional power under Section 59. Thought at the time of initiation of the impugned proceedings and issuance of the notice Santhal Pargana had already been bifurcated in four districts, namely, Dumka, godda, Sahibganj and Deoghar but the Deputy Commissioner of the districts had not been conferred with the aforesaid revisional power under Section 59 of the Act. This power conbferred by Bihar Santhal Parganas Bidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1984 (Bihar Act, 1984) which came into force on 26th May, 1984. [Hari Ballabh Narain v. State of Bihar, 1991 (1) PLJR 632: 1991 (1) BLJR 643]. Section 59- Commissioner has wide powers unde Section 59 of the Act to revise any order on his own motion or otherwise, decided by a Court under his control in which appeal does not lie or in which for cause shown to hissatisfaction and appeal has not been preferred- There is no time limit prescribed for the Commissioner to revise any order passed by his subordinate Court. [Jhagru Mahto v. Ravan Hansda, 1972 BLJR xxvii (sum)]. Section 59- Settlement operation- Powers of Commissioner- Interference by High Court- Scope of-Revisional powers of Commissioner is very wide and it can be exercised even ‘su moto’High Court, cannot exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227. [karan Murmu v. State of Bihar, 1994 (2) BLJR 993: 1994 (2) PLJR 684: 1994 (2) BLJ 141]. Sections 59 and 4, Clause (vii)- Notice under Section 69 of the Act by Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar dated 03/02/1984- Quashing of- Power conferred on 26th May, 1984- Notice without jurisdiction quashed. [Hari Ballabh Narain v. The State of Bihar, 1991 (1) BLJR 643]. Sections 27, 28, 59 and 61- Settlement of Waste land- Order for passed by Sub- Divisional Officer- In favour of non- jamabnandi raiyat, after following procedure prescribed therefore in Sections 27 and 28- Not illegal- Revisional procedure prescribed therefore in Sections 27 land 28- Not illegal- Revisional Authority affirmed that other of cancellation merely on ground that it does not amount to failure of justice- Committed manifest effort of law- Both these orders, thus, unsustainable-Settlement of wase land in favour of non-jamabandi raiyat- Not against law. [Mihir Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) BLJR 172: 1997 (1) PLJR 716: 1997 BBCJ 364].