The revisional authority's power to call for records and revise orders under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act is not limited to cases where the revisional authority acts suo motu or at the instance of an aggrieved party.

A.L.Bahri, J.

1. At the time of admission of the aforesaid writ petition the Division Bench doubted correctness of the decision of the earlier Division Bench rendered in C.W.P. No. 2232 of 1970 (Hardial Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors., C. W. P. 2232 of 1970), decided on December 24, 1970, and referred the matter to the larger Bench that is how the matter is before the Full Bench for reconsideration of the rule laid down in Hardial Singhs case (supra).

2. The Collector, Agrarian, Nabha, on January 24, 1983, decided surplus area case of Smt. Gurnam Kaur wd/o of Ishar Singh. It was held that she did not have any- surplus area. Annexure P. 1 is the copy of the order An appeal was taken to the Commissioner filed by the Collector of the district (Additional District Collector) through Naib Tehsildar, Agrarian. The commissioner, vide his order dated October 3, 1984 accepted the appeal. Gurnam Kaur petitioner moved the Financial Commissioner in revision against the order of the Commissioner. The revision was accepted on March 18, 1986 and the case was remanded to the Commissioner. On remand the Commissioner vide his order dated October 27, 1986, recommended to the Financial Commissioner in the exercise of powers of revision to set aside the order of the Collector Annexure P. 1. The Financial Commissioner on May 11, 1987 accepted the recommendation made by the Commissioner and set aside the order of the Collector dated January 24, 1983 and remanded the case to him for deciding the surplus area case of Gurnam Kaur afresh in accordance with law and after taking into consideration relevant entries in the Khasra Girdawaris which throw ample Sight on the aspect of classification of the land in dispute. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner which is impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. After notice of motion was issued reply was filed on behalf of the respondents by the Collector, Agrarian. It was argued before the Division Bench at the time of admission of the writ petition that in view of the rule of law laid down in Hardial Singhs case (supra), the Financial Commissioner could not legally treat the recommendation of the Commissioner as a revision petition as the Collector of the district through Nalb Tehsildar, Agrarian, was not competent to file the appeal before the Commissioner and secondly the appeal was timebarred. Such an appeal could not be treated as a revision which was not filed by the competent person and hence the same could not be treated as an action taken suo motu for revision of the order of the Collector, Agrarian, dated January 24, 1983 Hardial Singhs case was under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1951. On a complaint made by one Shiv Sihgh the Managing Committee of the Shahabad Farmers Co operative Marketing cum-Processing Society Ltd , Shahabad Markanda, considered the matter and passed Resolution No. 9 on January 7, 1969 placing Hardial Singh under suspension on charges of shortage of stocks and mis-appropriation of funds. A show cause notice was served upon Hirdial Singh on the report of the Sub-Committee by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. A reply to the show cause notice was sent and ultimately Hardial Singh was dismissed from service. An appeal was filed under Rule 36 of the Rules framed under the Act which was partly accepted. Hardial Singh was ordered to be re-instated However, a penalty of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed. During the period of suspension which was to be treated on duty Hardial Singh was held entitled to 50% of the pay. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the Society filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act which was ultimately heard by the Minister and was allowed. Hardial Singh was reverted to an inferior post This order was challenged in the writ petiton filed by Hardial Singh. The Society also challenged the aforesaid order in a separate Writ petition. It was argued on behalf of Hardial Singh that the order passed by