Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Appeals.— Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order or decree made under this Act by a Revenue officer or Revenue Court, as follows, namely:- (a) to the Collector when the order or decree is made by an Assis- tant Collector of either grade; (b) to the Commissioner when the order or decree is made by a Collector; (c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order or decree ,is made by a Commissioner; Provided that- (i) an appeal from an order or decree made by an Assistant Collec- tor of the first grade specially empowered by name in that behalf by the [State] (Sub. for the word "Provincial" by the Adaptation of Laws Order. 1950) Government in a suit mentioned in the first group of sub-section (3) of Section 77 shall lie to the Commissioner and not to the Collector; (ii) when an original order or decree is confirmed on first appeal a further appeal shall not lie. (iii) when any such' order or decree is modified or eversed on ap- peal by the Collector, the order or decree made by the Commis- sioner on further appeal, if any, to him-shall be final. Case Law Sections 80, 84, 84(2)—Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Section 18—Surplus area—Error in calculation—Ld. Commissioner took suo moto cognizance and directed the Collector to examine the surplus area case of petitioner in detail—Revision filed by petitioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner—A Commissioner, has jurisdiction to call for the record of any case disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control—But does not have suo-moto jurisdiction to set aside such an order and to issue directions in respect thereof—The directions issued by the Commissioner are limited to the examination of any error in calculation—The Collector would, therefore, be required to appraise the calculations and in the case of any prima facie error in calculation, would be required to call upon the petitioner to justify the error after recourse to the procedure established under the Act. ; Mahant Lakshmi Dhar v. Financial Comm., Taxation, Pb., Chandigarh : 2009(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 44 Sections:- 81 - 82 Sections 80 and 81—Appeal—Delay of 19 days in filling—Appeal should be decided on merits and not merely on ground of limitation—Order dismissing appeal on merits and not merely on ground of limitation—Order dismissing appeal on ground of limitation, quashed being delay not too long.; Data Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana : 2002(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) (DB) 666 —S. 80—H.P, Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Section 61—Interim injunction granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 against confiscation of619 bighas of land in favour of State—State filed appeal Commissioner vacated the stay-Respondent No.1 is in appeal before FC with the preliminary objection that appeal is not maintainable against an interlocutory order—Held—Order of the Commissioner on the stay application was not interlocutory—Appeal was maintainable—Impugned order dated 20th January, 1992 stayed—Appeal not finally decided—Case file sent back to Commissioner for deciding appeal as per law; 1993(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 145. —Ss.80 and 81—Limitation for filing appeal—Starts from the date of order declaring surplus area comes to knowledge of person affected/interested such an order is to be recorded in form "F" and is to be forwarded to the person interested—Not done in the case; 1992(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 197.