The Commissioner's order setting aside the Collector's order was incompetent and without jurisdiction, as there was no provision for review under Section 39 of the Pepsu Law and the Commissioner was not empowered to pass a final order in a revision case.

ORDER

S.R. Bunger, F.C. - The present is a revision petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, against the order dated 1.8.1966, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as per which he had set aside the order dated 16.1.1961, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, declaring an area measuring 50.91 Standard Acres as surplus with Natha Singh son of Kharak Singh, resident of village Bargari, District Faridkot, under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955.

2. The thumbnail facts of this case are, that, the surplus area case of Natha Singh son of Kharak Singh, resident of village Bargari, the predecessor-in- interest of Sukhwinder Singh alias Satwinder Singh, respondent No. 4, was decided by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, vide his order dated 16.1.1961, and an area measuring 50.91. Standard Acres was declared surplus with him; out of which, an area measuring 13.23 Standard Acres was situate at village Bargari, and the remaining area measuring 37.68 Standard Acres, was situate at village Ransingh Wala. Out of the area situate at village Bargari, an area measuring 11.86 Standard Acres including 2.66 Standard Acres allotted to Babu Ram, son of Paras Ram, was allotted to the different tenants as settlers under the provisions of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1960, framed under the Pepsu Law; and out of this, physical possession of an area measuring 3.68 Standard Acres, was delivered to the allottees on 13.5.1963 and 11.12.1963, after vesting the said area in the State Government under the provisions of Section 32-E of the Pepsu Law.

3. The draft statement declaring 50.91 Standard Acres, as surplus with Natha Singh was published in the official gazette, which had attained finality, as envisaged under Section 32-D(6). However, on the application dated 26.7.1965 moved for "revision" by Natha Singh, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum- Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot had made a reference dated 8.2.1966 to the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, for seeking review/revision of the order dated 16.1.1961, passed by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, declaring the area surplus. On this reference, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide his order dated 1.8.1966, had set aside the Collectors order dated 16.1.1961 and had remanded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Collector, Faridkot, for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

4. Natha Singh, a big landowner had reportedly died on 30.12.1966, and his property was partly inherited by his daughter Jagraj Kaur and partly it was bequeathed on Sukhwinder Singh through a Will. The surplus area case of Natha Singh was filed by the Collector vide his order dated 27.2.1967.

5. With a view to get the order dated 1.8.1966, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, revised, the then Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, vide his report dated 14.12.1976, had made a reference to the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, through the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, and the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide his report dated 6.11.1978, by endorsing the recommendation made by the Collector (Agrarian), Faridkot, had reported the case to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, recommending the setting aside of the order dated 1.8.1966, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, "being a nullity in law". The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, vide his order dated 11th September, 1980, had dismissed this reference in default.

6. The learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that the present revision petition needs to be accepted; and the order dated 1.8.1966, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Di