Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of revenue officers and 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. (2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control. (3) If any case in which a Commissioner or Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or the order or decree made should be modified or reversed he shall submit the record with his opinion on the case for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) If after examining a record called for by himself under sub-section (1) or submitted to him under sub-section (3) the Financial Commissioner is of opinion that it is in expedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree, it shall pass an order accordingly. (5) If, after examining the record, the Financial Commissioner is of opinion that it is expedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree on any ground on which the [High Court] (Subs. for the words "Chief Court" byAct 18 of 1919) in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may under the law for the time being in force interfere with the proceedings or an order or decree of Civil Court, he shall fix a day for hearing the case, and may, on that or any subsequent day to which he may adjourn the hearing or which he may appoint in this behalf, pass such order as he thinks fit in the case. (6) Except when the Financial Commissioner fixes under sub- sec- tion (5) a day for hearing the case, no party has any right to be heard before the Financial Commissioner when exercising his powers under this section. Sections:- 83 - 84 Case Law Section 84(2)—Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, Section 18—Appeal—Surplus Area—Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings and to take Suo Moto notice is only with the Financial Commissioner—However empowers the Commissioner or the Collector to call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court under his control—Commissioner does not have Suo Moto Jurisdiction to set aside such an order and to issue direction in respect thereof—An error or illegality comes to the notice of a revenue officer, more particularly, where the error or illegality has the effect of reducing surplus area, it is the duty and obligation of every revenue officer to examine the matter and thereafter either seek permission, of his immediate superior to review the orders or forward a reference to the Financial Commissioner—The Commissioner, therefore, should have forwarded a reference to the Financial Commissioner, with his comments—The order of the subordinate courts are liable to be set aside or modified—Writ petition disposed—Provisions in regard to appeal, review and revision under this Act shall be the same, as provided in Sections 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. ; 2009 ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER FEB. PART. Section 84-Revision filed in court of FC- Dismissed in default, twice for non appearance-Third restoration application dismissed as earlier it had been ordered "application for restoration not likely to be entertained"- Reasons given by petitioner/ counsel did not find favour with FC-Adverse comments made on the demeanour of the Counsel- Unfortunate-Endeavour of the courts should be to decide cases on merits-On two occasions even respondent was not presents CWP allowed- Dissimissal orders Quashed- On account of adverse remarks and counter allegations by the counsel, in the interest of justice revision may be decided by some other officer- Remitted.; Tirath Das v. State of Haryana and Ors.: 2003(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 347 Section 84—Determination of surplus area—Suo motu proceedings initiated after 30 years—The words "Suo moto" have to used with some sense of natural justice and discretion—Ridiculous for State which formerly attached that land of a person, auctioned it and then maintain that its liability to re-determined as surplus be re- opened—Before re-determining the status of land the transferees had right to be heard and served with notice—Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, Section 24.; Bhagat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others : 2001(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (FC, Hry.) 155. Section 84—Revision reported to Financial Commissioner—Even if parties, either or both, fail to tour up at the time of hearing revision cannot be dismissed in default— Opportunity provided to be heard is enough, may not be availed—Case has to be decided on merits, on facts available on record—It is in the interest of justice and fairplay to review the order of dismissal in default and accept the reference by the Commissioner—Order of Collector, by which surplus area case was decided is upheld.; Babu Ram v. State of Punjab : 1999(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (FC, Pb.) 423 50 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 51 Section:- 85 Section 84—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 115—Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955—Section 39(3)—Punjab TenancyAct, 1887—Section 84—Tenant was ordered to be evicted when he failed to deposit rent plus costs within time stipulated, short by Rs. 174/—F.C. allowed the short amount to be deposited—Jurisdiction of F.C. to revise the orders is challenged—Conjoint reading of Section 39(3) Land Act and Section 84(5) of TenancyAct make it clear that even in the absence of an appeal filed, F.C. can exercise his suo motu powers of revision—No ground warranting interference with impugned orders.; Charan Dass v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana : 1998(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 522 Section 84—It was in 1983 that surplus land of big landowner vested in the state— Great Grandsons of the landlord have challenge the validity of surplus area—They have also managed an entry in the mutation as mortgagors and some party as mortgagees—Mortgagors were never vested with any rights to mortgage transaction, petitioners have been able to keep possession of the land—Land deserves to be treated as vested in Government—Case referred back to local revenue authority to utilise the surplus area as free from all encumbrances and update the Revenue Records—Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1971—Section 18.; Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab : 1998(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (FC, Pb.) 14 —S. 84—Before the F.C., petitioner has himself demolished his plea of adverse possession for over 20 years and has accepted the factum of tenancy under the Education Society on 1/3 batai through a third person who was never in possession— In the revision, which scope is very limited the petitioner has to prove miscarriage of justice either because of wrong, exercise of power or Revenue Officers having grossly misunderstood the facts—Petitioners denial of relationship of tenant and landlord never succeeded—Revision disposed of by the Commissioner by a one- line non-speaking order is distressing-Revision devoid of merit, is dismissed; 1996(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 472. Procedure