Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
APPEAL, REVIEW AND REVISION.--(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Prescribed Authority, not being the Collector, may, within [Fifteen days] (Vide Act No. 17 Of 1976) from the date of the decision or order, prefer an appeal to the Collector in such form and manner as I may be prescribed: Provided that the Collector may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of [fifteen days] (Vide Act No. 17 of 1976) if he is satisfied that t the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Collector (whether acting as Prescribed authority or not) not being a decision or order made in an appeal under sub-section (1), may, within [fifteen days (Vide Act No. 17 of 1976) from the date of decision or order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such from and manner as may be pre· scribed: Provided that the Commissioner may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of [fifteen days] if he is satisfied that the appellant was presently by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (3) Omitted vide Act No. 40 of 1976. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub- section (1), may within (Thirty days) from the date of the order, file a revision petition before the Commissioner so as to challenge the legality or properity of such order and the Commissioner may pass such order as he may deem fit The order of the Commissioner shall be final. (5) Omitted vide Act No. 40 of 1976. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub- sections, the Financial Commissioner may suo moto at any time call for the record of any proceedings or order of any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order, and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem fit. (7) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or revision under sub-section (4) shall be entertained unless the appellant or the petitioner, as the case be, has deposited a sum equal to thirty times the land holdings tax payable in respect of the disputed surplus area or has furnished a bank guarantee of the equal amount as security with the appellate or revisional authority; (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 21, a person who files an appeal or a revision against the order declaring his land as surplus area and the appeal or revision filed by him fails, shall be liable to pay, for the period he is or has at any time been in possession of the land declared surplus to which he is or was not entitled under the law, a licence fee equal to thirty times the land holdings tax, recoverable in respect of this area, (Vide Ac No. 34 of 1980) (9) Omitted vide Act No. 34 of 1980 CASE LAW Section 18(6)-- Suo motu powers of Financial Commissioner- Determination of surplus area-Bogus School certificate relied upon-Fraud detected after more than 20 years- Held-Within a reasonable time, error on surplus area should be detected and proceeded- Willful wrong decision cannot be allowed to be right with passage of time--Law has to take its course even if fraud is detected after substantial delay--Delay condoned-Impugned orders of Prescribed authority set aside; State of Haryana v. Raghubir Singh : 2002(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (F.C. Har.) 148 Sections 18(6)--Haryana Utilisation of surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976--Paras 10 and 13-- In pursuance of final allotment order, possession of land sought--Pendency of civil proceedings in absence of stay order cannot affect the case adversely-- Possession allowed as per orders of allotment of prescribed authority--Surplus area utilised under specific act and is liable to be executed; Jagrat Singh v. Maliat Singh: 2002(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (F.C., Hry.) 417. Section 18(6)- -Determination of permissible area and surplus area-One primary unit for petitioner and his family and one separate unit for his c- adult son-Direct revision to FC by State without availing remedies of appeal 5 and revision, after lapse of more than 9 years that son was not adult on appointed day--Held, expecting rewriting history was asking too much- State could not prove its claim-Son, held to be adult on appointed day and entitled · for separate unit; Maman Singh v. State of Haryana through Collector, · Sonepat: 2002(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (FC, Hry.) 552 S. 18(6)-Government files revision seeking invoking suo motu powers · of F.C. for a setting aside of orders of Prescribed Authority-Filed late by 13 years-After "No surplus area" was decided by the Prescribed Authority, Department received complaints that wrong statements have been filed to procure that certificate of no surplus land-Government conducted inquiries and f came to know that there was an error of facts on which "Prescribed Authority" passed orders "No suprlus area"--After completion of enquiry Revision under S. 18(6) of the Act has been filed-Petition invoking suo motu powers of F.C.is allowed- Matter remitted back to Prescribed Authority to decide the surplus area afresh;1999(3) AII India Land Laws Reporter 274. Section 18(6) and 4-Respondents, big Land owners played a fraud on the State in surplus proceedings-They manipulated age certificates, showed their minor sons as major, and got three extra units-This affected the rights of the tenant--Case filed by the tenant is resisted on the basis of limitation-Arid changed names in the certificates--Held-Limitation does not apply here as such a case could be filed only after the fraud is detected- As regards the age certificate and fake names, the applicants have established grave charge against the respondents-Case of fraud is ordered to be registered against them-Surrplus area should be redetermined; All India Land Laws Reporter 557 Ss. 18 & 23--Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953-S. 18- Respondents reopened a case of sale of land to a tenant, a brother-in-law of the big land-owner after 34 years--Object to this deal (finalised in 1962) under R.4 of Haryana Rules, 1973-- Till 1985 this deal had been adjudicated before various Courts and a validity of purchase was upheld,.. Collector on reopening the purchase found a fraud on the State and cancelled the purchase finalised in 1962 on basis of Rules framed in 1973 by his order dated 20.3.1996-In this. appeal respondent have not been able to show any provision in old Act which barred a brother-in-law to be tenant--Commissioner could not decide. the matter in that manner- Could have at the most recommended the case to F.C.-Purchase having been upheld as genuine many times could not be upset-- Orders of the Commissioner dated 20.3.1996 set aside--Revision petition accepted;1999 (1) All India Laws Reporter 168 Section 18--Revision--limitation--Person not made party before the Collector--Date of order of collector cannot be taken as the date of knowledge; 1984 (2) All India Laws Reporter 111 Section 18--Utilisation of, Surplus and other Areas Scheme, 1976-Paras 7, 10 and 13 -Plea challenging order of allotment-- Certificate of allotment and other orders passed by the authorities under the Act and the scheme can be challenged before the authorities under section 18-Civil Court has not jurisdiction; 1984 (2) All India Laws Reporter 170 Section 18-Appeal and Revision--Technical Flaw--No ground to reopen 1 cases which have been decided long ago under the old Act; 1999 (2) All India I Laws Reporter 232 Section 18--Act does not provide a second appeal to Collector-- Second Appeal ipso facto illegal; 1985 (2) All India Laws Reporter 307 Section 18(1) (a)--Transfer of land before 30th July, 1958 is· capable 01 affecting the surplus area--Transfer being valid-- Will, when shrounded with dubious circumstances, will not be considered valid piece of legal document having any affect on the declaration of surplus area; 1991 (2) All India Law Reporter 331 Section 18(4)--Person aggrieved by the order of the Collector may file a petition for revision before the Commissioner within 30 days from the date d the order--And the order of the Commissioner shall be final-No provision it the act for review; 1990 (2) All India Laws Reporter 293 Section 18(6)--Suo moto revision-Revenue Officers while forwarding cases for suo moto revision must examine matter in detail make definite recommendation; 1986 (1) All India Laws Reporter 598 Section 18(6)--Financial Commissioner may suo moto at any time all for record of case from the Lower Court to satisfy himself about the legality or propriety of such proceedings or orders- And pass such orders as he deems fit to do; 1990 (2) All India Laws Reporter 293 Section 18(6)--Scope of power of Financial Commissioner-Error com mitted by prescribed authority--Power can be exercised under Section 18(6)· No power of review exist under the Act; 1983 (1) All India, Laws Reporter 532 Section 18(6)--Punjab Security Land Tenures Act, 1953, Section 24Revision petitioner filed direct before the Financial Commissioner--Without approaching- Commissioner--Petition not maintainable-Revision should be file before the Section 18(6)and 3 (i)--Majority of son on appointed day- Pre scribed Authority in 1977 found a major son and as such the landowner enl tied to a primary unit plus a separate unit-Land holding less than and as such no surplus area;1991 (1) All India Laws Reporter 167 Section 18(6)- In 1979, Prescribed Authority reviewed its own assessment of 1977 - Found 6 minor children including the son who was found Major in 1977-Landowner entitled to one primary unit and three additional units--Yet no surplus; 1991 (1) All India Laws Reporter 167 Section 18(6)-Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Area Scheme 1976--Form U.2--Column 7--Allotment Authority, authorised by the Government notification dated 15th May, 1978, to cancel the allotment of surplus land--Allotted to these allottees who get said allotment on the basis of wren information given in the form--But no power to review has been given by the act or the rules to anyone--Financial Commissioner alone can initiate Suo Motu action in exercise of Revision Powers; 1991 (1) All India Laws Reporter 281 Section 18(6)--Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976--Form U.2 Column 7- On a complaint to the Prime Minister regarding land allotted to Petitioner, as to eligibility of allotted, investigations were cared out by Prescribed authority-cum- Allotment Authority--Allotment cancelled as wrong information was suppl1edwhile prying for allotment--Cancellation challenged before F.C. Haryana-F.C. alone could cancel the order of allotment-Order of cancellation held void for want of jurisdiction--Direction issued to put back allottee into possession; 1991 (2) All India Laws Reporter 220 Section 18(6)- ―Any time‖--Financial Commissioner has powers to review the cases" at any time‖ -Legislation did not intend any limitation of time to be clamped-That is the design of the Section 18-Subject to three consideration as per Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 1990 (2) All India Laws Reporter 293 Section 18(6)--Revisional Jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner- -To be restricted to records available and reviewed by the lower court--Fresh material cannot be taken into consideration--Once Financial Commissioner comes to conclusion that order. of lower court suffers from vice of illegality of impropriety he can order enquiry into the whole case--Call for fresh evidence-Fresh evidence is to be argued upon by the party adversely affected by the conclusion of Financial Commissioner;1990 (2) All India Laws Reporter 293 Section 18(7)-Appeal and revision--Requirement to deposit 30 times the land holdings tax payable in respect of the disputed area before any appeal or revision is entertained--Is not violative of Article 14;1980 All India Laws Reporter 365