JUDGMENT Attar Singh, Financial Commissioner (Rev. and A ).—The Sub-Divisional Collector has referred two cases (ceiling case No. 30/1974 and 31/1974) of S/Shri Amin Chand and Hari Chand to this court for interference in revision under section 20 of the H. P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. To understand the facts of the case and the legal defect crept in the orders passed earlier by the Collector in these cases it would be appropriate to reproduce the report of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 4-2-1987 herein below :— "In both these cases orders were passed by Sh. V. K. Bansal the then Collector Land Ceiling Una Sub-Division on 8-10-1974 declaring on area of 419 Kanals 18 Marias as surplus land in each case. Feeling aggrieved from this order the parties sought its review which was granted and done. While reviewing the order of 8-10-1974 in these cases Sh. V. P. Gupta the then Collector held in his order dated 30-7-1975 that in each case out of the total holding of 1052 Kanals 18 Marias land measuring 969 Kanals 15 marlas did not attract provisions of the Ceiling Act being Ban Sankar and Gair Mumkin land. Having decided this he withdraw the notice given to the land owners as each of them individually was entitled to retain two units. Subsequently the superintendent of Forests, Kutlehar vide his letter dated 24-2-1980 which was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Una intimated that Sh. Amin Chand and Sh. Hari Chand sons of Dheru R/O Tika Kothi have filed a civil suit against the Himachal Pradesh Government and the superintendent of Forests, Kutlehar claiming ownership of trees grown over "Their Land". He further alleged that being big landowners their holdings should fall under the purview of the H. P. Land Ceilings Act. As a result the files of these cases were reopened and my learned predecessor Sh. H. S. Atwal the then Collector Land Ceilings Una Sub-Division, after consideration of the files including the report of the halqa patwari come to the conclusion that out of 815 Kanals 11 marlas Ban Sankar land in each case only 148 Kanals 3 marlas was Gair mumkin, which alone, along with the other 156 Kanal 6 marlas of gair mumkin land, in each case qualified for exclusion under the Ceilings Act. Accordingly, after allowing 633 Kanals (for two units) in each case, he discovered that an area of 115 Kanals 9 marlas qualified for being declared surplus in each ease. Therefore he sought the permission of the learned Divisional Commissioner at Dharamshala for reviewing the orders of Sh. V. P. Gupta dated 8-10-1974 and 30-7-1975 in both cases. The learned Divisional Commissioner Dharamshala granted the permission to review on 8-8-1980 and the files were received back in this court on 16-11-1983. Thereafter the cases suffered numerous adjournments till I finally heard the counsel for the respondents on 29-1-1987 as to why an order reviewing the earlier orders should not be passed. At this point the counsel brought to my notice that in the H. R Land Ceilings Act there is no provision for review. Consequently no review can be done of the impugned orders and moreover since the order dated 30-7-1975 passed by my learned predecessor Sh. V. P. Gupta had reviewed the earlier order 8-10-1974 without there being a provision in the Ceiling Act for review on illegality has been committed. After hearing the counsel and going through the Act I am satisfied that there indeed is no provision for review in the Ceiling Act and further that due to earlier review orders on the file and also the factual discrepancy regarding the land to be declared surplus, an illegality has been committed. Though strangely the first review order on the file was passed on the application of the respondent, yet that fact cannot erase the illegality committed. Consequently, invoking the provisions of section 20 (3) of the Ceiling Act I hereby order that this matter be brought to the notice of the learned F. C , H. P. and files be sent to him for taking his orders regarding further disposal of these files. A copy of this order also be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Una with the request that though the learned Divisional Commissioner, Dharamshala accorded his sanction for review on 8-8-1980 in this case, still this was put up only on 16-11-1983, for first hearing thereafter. This delay of more than 3 years in a sensitive land Ceilings case raises the suspicion of deliberate neglect of duty by someone responsible. The matter may please be enquired into, and suitable action taken against the delinquents. 2. This delay of more than 3 years in a sensitive land Ceilings case raises the suspicion of deliberate neglect of duty by someone responsible. The matter may please be enquired into, and suitable action taken against the delinquents. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and District Attorney for the State and perused the court record. I find from the court record that Ban Sarkar and "Gair Mumkin" land have been declared surplus by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Una vide his order dated 8-10-1974. In fact the land which is not subservient to agriculture and Ban Sankar land, should not have declared surplus. This order was subsequently modified on 30-7-1975 by the Sub-Divisional Collector. 3. Under the Ceiling Act, there is no provision for review. Thus the order passsed by the Sub-Divisional Collector on 30-7-1975 in these cases was also illegal and bad in law. Further the order dated 6-10-1974 of the Sub-Divisional Collector in these cases is illegal and both these orders deserve to be set aside. I accordingly proceed to accept the report of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 4-2-1987 and set aside the order dated 8-10-1974 and dated 30-7-1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Una in these two cases. 4. These cases are remanded to the Sub-Divisional Collector, Una with the direction that he should pass fresh orders in the light of the above observation after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the interested parties. Case remanded.