ORDER 1. This is a Revision petition filed against the orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 14-1-1980, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23-3-1978 late Sh. Mohi Ram father of the present petitioner made an application on which Smt. Mesho respondent had also affixed her thumb impression stating that late Sh. Chandu, the husband of the respondent, who was the tenant of the land, in question, had during his life time relinquished the possession in his favour, but the land had continued to be shown in the possession of late Sh. Chandu in the revenue record ; that it was necessary to correct the relevant entries and that his submission was supported by the widow of late Sh. Chandu. He further prayed in the application that the revenue entries may be corrected according^ after recording their statements. The Assistant Collector II Grade recorded the statement of Smt. Mesho, who stated that she was not in a position to cultivate the land after the death of her husband and, as such, had voluntarily relinquished the possession of the land in favour of late Sh. Mohi Ram but her name was wrongly continuing in the revenue record for the last 3-4 years. She prayed that the entries in the revenue record may be made in the name of Sh. Mohi Ram. On the basis of the joint application of late Sh. Mohi Ram and Smt. Mesho widow of Sh. Chandu and the statement of Smt. Mesho, the Assistant Collector II Grade, ,Renuka, passed an order on the same date that the entries be corrected showing the cultivation in the name of late Sh. Mohi Ram s/o Shei. Khayali Ram, resident of Dal Palara. 3. On 19-6-1978 Smt. Mesho made an application under Section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act in the Court of the Assistant Collector 11 Grade requesting him to review his orders dated 23-3-1978 on the ground that Sh. Mohi Ram asked the petitioner to accompany him to the Tehsil Office, where he would pay her Rs. 5,000 as the purchase money of her land. Since the petitioner was financially very tight, she agreed to the suggestion and accompanied the respondent. Further, the respondent asked her to affix her thumb impression on an application and to admit every thing which would be asked inside the court. 5,000 as the purchase money of her land. Since the petitioner was financially very tight, she agreed to the suggestion and accompanied the respondent. Further, the respondent asked her to affix her thumb impression on an application and to admit every thing which would be asked inside the court. The petitioner submitted to his suggestions without knowing the evil designs of the respondent and that her statement was obtained by mis-representing facts to her. She further mentioned that since the respondent had not paid the settled purchase money, she had not handed over the possession of the land to the respondent and prayed that the land may continue to be shown in her possession in the revenue papers. The Assistant Collector 11 Grade, referred the case to the Collector (Sub- Divisional Officer), exercising the powers of the Collector for necessary orders since he was not competent to review his own orders. 4. The Collector, Nahan Sub-Division, got field enquiries made and also afforded opportunities to both the parties to present their case in person. He came to the conclusion that a fraud had been played upon the poor Harijan lady tenant and that the relinquishment of tenancy by Smt. Mesho was bad in law. He, therefore, quashed the orders of the learned Assistant Collector II Grade and restored the earlier entries. It may, however, be mentioned here that while passing his orders, the learned Collector stated that he was accepting the review application, under Section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. 5. The petitioner went in appeal before the learned Commissioner against these orders of the Collector, which was dismissed and the orders of the Collector, Nahan, were upheld. The learned Commissioner agreed with the findings of the lower court that the appellant had manipulated relinquishment of tenancy in his favour by fraudulent means which was bad in law according to the provisions of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 6. The petitioner has come in revision against the said orders of the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner agreed with the findings of the lower court that the appellant had manipulated relinquishment of tenancy in his favour by fraudulent means which was bad in law according to the provisions of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 6. The petitioner has come in revision against the said orders of the learned Commissioner. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel of the petitioner is that the Collector could not himself pass orders under Section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act on the reference made by the Assistant Collector II Grade and that either he should have allowed the Assistant Collector II Grade to review his earlier orders or rejected the same. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not a case of relinquishment of tenancy but of abandonment of tenancy under Section 45 (c) of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and, as such, covered under the law. 7. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, rebutted the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner both on facts and law. He stressed that since relinquishment of the tenancy is bad in law under Section 31 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the orders of the Assistant Collector II Grade were ab-initio bad in law and to that extent had no force at all. Secondly, he pointed out to the procedure followed by the learned Collector in allowing the parties an opportunity of being heard, getting field enquiries made through the revenue staff and contended that the proceedings taken by the learned Collector were fresh proceedings under Section 37 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act and not proceedings on the basis of the reference made by the Assistant Collector 11 Grade. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have carefully considered the arguments advanced by them. 1 have also gone through the records of the lower courts. It is established from the perusal of the record that the Assistant Collector II Grade referred the case to the Collector to seek his permission to allow him to review his earlier orders as he mentioned in his reference that his court was not competent to review his own orders. It is established from the perusal of the record that the Assistant Collector II Grade referred the case to the Collector to seek his permission to allow him to review his earlier orders as he mentioned in his reference that his court was not competent to review his own orders. The learned Collector has himself made a reference to Section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act in his orders. This section lays down the procedure for review of his own orders or the orders of his predecessor by a Revenue Officer. This section does not empower an appellate Revenue Officer to pass orders himself. 9. I, therefore, hold that the order passed by the learned Collector is bad in law and set it aside with the directions that the Collector may pass orders on the reference made by the Assistant Collector 11 Grade under Section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. Announced. Order accordingly. -