Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Review by revenue officer.;— (1) A Revenue Officer, as such, may either of own motion or on the application of any party interested, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm any order passed by Himself or by any of his predecessors in office: Provided as follows:- (a) When a Commissioner or Collector thinks it necessary to re- view any order which he has not himself passed, and when a Rev- enue Officer of a class below that of Collector purposes to review any order whether passed by himself or by any of his predeces- sors in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Revenue Of- ficer to whose control he is immediately subject; (b) no application for review of an order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period; 44 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 45 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 47 46 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 Sections:- 81 - 82 (c) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order; (d) an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not reviewed; (2) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise power as a Revenue Offic- ers, and to whom there is no successor in office. (3) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review, or confirm- ing on review, a previous order. Case Law Section 82—Punjab Land ReformsAct, 1972, Section 18—Review of an order passed by predecessor in office under Section 82 of the 1887 Act—On the date when reference was made by the Collector (Agrarian) to the Commissioner, State has already preferred an appeal against the order sought to be reviewed—Bar created under proviso (d) to Section 82 of the 1887 Act was clearly applicable—Order passed by Financial Commissioner was beyond the provisions of the Act and resulted in dilution of the exception clause—Jurisdiction vested in the Financial Commissioner is ousted—Theory of merger—Clearly beyond the provisions ofAct—Impugned orders declared as illegal and without jurisdiction—Writ allowed.; Spinder Singh alias Harminder Singh v. State of Punjab : 2008(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 441 —S. 82—Only a new material on record can call for a second review, which otherwise is not called for and the Collector (Agr.) having reviewed case earlier would act as res judicata for fresh review- -Bonafides of sales keeping in view surplus area had been held valid and previous order confirmed—Second review is not the alternative remedy to appeal or revision—Repeated reviews of already reviewed orders militates against sound principles of law; 1994(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 15. Section 82—Review—FC has powers to review his own order and can vary or amend them—But review has to the within certain limits— In this case it is a case of apparent genuniue mistake and review cannot be said to be bad in law—Another objection that review petition was filed by a different counsel—Since review involved is of an apparent mistake in the allotment order, the application cannot be said to be not maintainable.; Des Raj alias Deso v. Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab and others: 2004(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb.& Hry.) 316 Section 82—Review—Remedy of review is no substitute for appeal or revision— Review can generally resorted to only where the object is to rectify a mistake or patent error—Provision without any conditions as in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, show the difference in two reviews statutorily provided—Civil Procedure code, 1908— Order 47, Rule 1. ; Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab : 1998(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 452 Sections:- 81 - 82 Section 82—Pendency of Review proceedings for over 7 years—Such proceedings were to be considered, continued and disposed of in terms of surplus area, as if Haryana Ceiling on land Holdings Act had not been passed.; Sarup Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana ; 1998(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 452 Section 82(1)—Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Section 18—Appeal review and revision—Section 82 enables to Revenue Officer to review his order or an order passed by his predecessor in office—An order passed by predecessor in his office is to be reviewed, sanction of an authority higher in rank was required—Exercise of power is subject to condition an order against which appeal had been preferred can not be reviewed—Collector (Agrarian) had passed the order that there is no surplus area with the petitioner—Aggrieved against the order, respondent-State preferred an appeal before the Commissioner—Review proceedings and order held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed—Petition allowed. ; Nand Kishore v. Kishan Lal : 2008(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 231 Section 82(1) Proviso (a) and (b)—Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Section 18—Appeal & Review—Appeal filed by the State Govt. before Commissioner—The Collector (Agrarian) had passed the order declaring that there is no surplus area with the petitioner—Aggrieved against the order, respondent-State preferred an appeal before the Commissioner—During the pendency of appeal, before it was dismissed in default, the Collector, Agrarian sent a reference to the Commissioner, who issued notice to the petitioner for review of the order passed by the Collector (Agrarian)— As reference was required to be made to the Commissioner seeking a permission to review the earlier order passed by the Collector, Agrarian in terms of Section 82 proviso (a) of the 1887 Act, which is applicable for proceedings under the Act in terms of Section 18 of the Act whereby the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as contained in Sections 80 to 84, have been made applicable—After hearing the petitioner as well as Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian, learned Commissioner, granted permission to the Collector, Agrarian to review its order—Petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner against the order passed by the Commissioner permitting the Collector, Agrarian to review its order—The Financial Commissioner, rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that appeal filed by the State against the order of Collector (Agrarian) having been dismissed by the Commissioner in default, the order thereof did not merge in the order of Collector and accordingly, permission for review of the order granted by the Commissioner was perfectly legal—The reasoning given by Financial Commissioner to reject the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner permitting the Collector (Agrarian) to review its order cannot be accepted—On a plain reading of proviso (d) of Section 82 (1) of the 1887 Act, which provides that an exception to the exercise of power of revenue by the Revenue,Officer, it is evident that an order against which an appeal is 'preferred' shall not be reviewed—Order passed by the Commissioner & Financial Commissioner illegal and without jurisdiction—Writ petition allowed. ; Spinder Singh Alias Harminder Singh v. State of Punjab : 2008(3) ALL. INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 677 ITHE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 49 48 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 Sections:- 83 - 84 Section 82(1)—Review of the orders passed by RevenueAuthorities—Commissioner can grant sanction of review of the orders passed by the subordinate authorities— In such proceedings, the legislature wanted to exclude the principles of natural justice—Order does not directly effect persons who were parties to such order— No civil rights of the parties are affected—No hearing right to the parties—No notice is thus envisaged.; Sarupp Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana ; 1998(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 452