D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) THE short question that falls for determination in this writ petition is as to whether the Circle Revenue Officer for the purpose of reviewing his predecessor's order is to be considered subject to the immediate control of the Agrarian Collector or the Collector of the district.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy, only a few relevant facts admitted on both hands need be stated. Shri Hem Raj acting as the Circle Revenue Officer, - -vide his order dated 19th April, 1966, allotted 19 standard acres and 151 units of land to the Petitioners (sons of Nidhan Singh) to whom this area was earlier alleged to have been gifted by their father and which was ignored while calculating his surplus area. The Circle Revenue Officer thereafter sought review of his order. The requisite permission to review was accorded by the Collector (Agrarian) by his order dated 25th November, 1969. On review of his earlier order, the Circle Revenue Officer held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the allotment of any area as tenants. This order was challenged in appeal. The case was remanded back to the Circle Revenue Officer on the ground that he had passed the review order without hearing the Petitioners. The Circle Revenue Officer, reaffirming his earlier order, held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the allotment as tenants of the area that had been allotted to them by his order dated 19th April, 1966. This later order was affirmed by the Collector (Agrarian) in an appeal filed by the Petitioners. Against that order, the Petitioners approached the Commissioner in a revision petition who recommended to the Financial Commissioner the acceptance thereof. The learned Financial Commissioner, however, by his order dated 23rd October, 1972, declined the reference and upheld the order of the Circle Revenue Officer and that of the Collector (Agrarian), thus paving the way for the filing of the present writ petition in this Court. The relevant provisions having a bearing on the controversy require to be set out at the very outset:
(3.) SECTION 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Act X of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which deals with the power of review, etc., is in the following terms: 24. The provision in regard to appeal, review and revision under this Act shall, so far as may be, be the same as provided in Section 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887). The relevant provision of Section 82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887) (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, reads - - 82. (1) A revenue officer, as such may either of his 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 processors in office: Provided as follows: (a) When a Commissioner or Collector thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, and when a revenue officer of a class below that of Collector proposes to review any order whether passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office, he shall first obtain the sanction of the revenue officer to whose control he is immediately subject; (b)*** (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)*** (2)*** (3)***;