ORDER R. Bhattacharya—These revision petitions are disposed of by this single order since they arise out of a single order passed by the District Collector, Solan in case Nos. 4, 5, 6/7 of 1996 dated 5.6.1996 and the grounds taken in revision are also identical. 2. A brief recapitulation of the facts of the case appears necessary before delving into the points at issue. An application on behalf of all the petitioners was filed before Assistant Collector 1st grade Kasauli for correction of revenue entries in the revenue record for setting aside the orders whereby, proprietory rights in respect of the land owned by the petitioners were conferred upon Sh. Baisakhi Ram under the provisions of H.R Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, during 1976. The petitioners afterwards filed other applications and further resumption of Sh. Baisakhi Ram thereafter the applicants/petitioners filed another applications seeking review of the mutation (No. 66 dated 11.2.1976) whereby the tenant was conferred the proprietory rights under the Land Reforms Act. The contention with regard to the resumption of land was brushed aside by the Land Reforms Officer Kasauli, as also the plea for review of the mutation but still chose to send the file to the Sub-Divisional Collector, Solan vide his orders dated 19.12.1994 who returned the file to Land Reforms Officer Kasauli for submission thereof, before competent authority without indicating as to who was the competent authority. Subsequently the matter took a sudden turn, according to the order sheet dated 26.6.1995 of the Land Reforms Officer, Kasauli, the District Collector, Solan requisitioned all case files telephonically and the files appear to have been sent to him on 3.7.1995 without stating the purpose for their transmission. Acting immediately the Deputy Commissioner Solan (not the District Collector) suo-motu took cognizance of the matter, went on to record an order on 5.7.1995 by which he allowed the review of mutation No. 66 dated 11.02.1976. By ordering the permission to review the mutation dating as back as 11.2.1976, without having been asked to do so, the Assistant Collector had no option but to commence proceedings for review of the orders dated 11.2.1976 passed on mutation No. 66. By ordering the permission to review the mutation dating as back as 11.2.1976, without having been asked to do so, the Assistant Collector had no option but to commence proceedings for review of the orders dated 11.2.1976 passed on mutation No. 66. The Land Reforms Officer, Kasauli passed an order on 7.2.1996 by which he refused to review the impugned mutation and the parties aggrieved thereby again approached the District Collector, Solan by filing revision petitions under Section 65 (2) read with Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The learned District Collector agreed to the contentions of the petitioners and recommended the same for acceptance to this Court in exercise of jurisdiction vested under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 3. The District Collector, Solan has come to the conclusion that he is competent to exercise re visional jurisdiction under Section 114, as under Section 65 (2) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and has accordingly recommended that the petitioners has not been heard at the time of attestation of Mutation No. 66 on 11.2.1976 and hence it should be set aside and the case be remanded to the Land Reforms Officer for passing orders afresh, according to him, on the basis of merit of each case. 4. The case came up for hearing on 30.11.1996 when Shri R.K. Garg, Advocate presented the case of the petitioners and Sh. Sehaj Ram, General Power of Attorney appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the arguments set up in the memorandum of petitions and prayed that the recommendations made by the District Collector Solan are just and proper and need be accepted in the interest of justice. He also drew my attention to various case laws noted in the impugned order where emphasis has been laid down on the mandatory provision of presence of parties at the time of attestation of a mutation. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record available on the case files of the lower Courts. The first issue that constitutes the basis of the present proceedings is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 5.7.1995 by which he permitted the Assistant Collector, Kasauli to review the mutation No. 66 attested on 11.2.1976. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record available on the case files of the lower Courts. The first issue that constitutes the basis of the present proceedings is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 5.7.1995 by which he permitted the Assistant Collector, Kasauli to review the mutation No. 66 attested on 11.2.1976. The case for obtaining permission to review the said mutation was never made out by the Assistant Collector, Kasauli as is clear from his order dated 26.6.1995, but the Deputy Commissioner, according to this order of Assistant Collector requisitioned the file telephonically, which was sent to him on 3.7.1995 and the Deputy Commissioner immediately accorded his permission to review the impugned mutation. The crucial question is whether Deputy Commissioner could suo-motu requisition the file, that too telephonically. What was the material before him to warrant to invoke such a jurisdiction. There is nothing on record as to how he acquired knowledge about a case pending before Assistant Collector, Kasauli, there is no application from either of the parties to seek his intervention in the matter. Under these circumstances, it is not comprehensible as to how the District Collector invoked the jurisdiction which did not vest with him. There is no provision under the relevant laws that enables the District Collector to call for the record of a case, much less to call for it telephonically and pass an effective order thereon without making a reference to the Financial Commissioner who also passes order thereon after hearing the parties. The order dated 5.7.1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (not as District Collector) is erroneous, irregular and smacks of indecent haste. The District Collector has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of this, the irresistible conclusion is that this order dated 5.7.1995 passed by the District Collector, Solan is a nullity and is accordingly set aside. Orders passed subsequent to this must fail by implication and accordingly the present recommendations made by the District Collector, Solan deserve dismissal on this ground alone. 7. In view of this, the irresistible conclusion is that this order dated 5.7.1995 passed by the District Collector, Solan is a nullity and is accordingly set aside. Orders passed subsequent to this must fail by implication and accordingly the present recommendations made by the District Collector, Solan deserve dismissal on this ground alone. 7. Apart from this, I proceed to go into another interesting important point made out in the recommendations, though it is not warranted in view of the aforesaid discussion but since the question has been raised and may receive varied interpretations by various revenue officers, it is felt appropriate to adjudicate on it to set the controversy at rest and to ensure uniform application of law by the various revenue officers across the state. The question is whether revision petition under Section 114 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is maintainable before a District Collector or a Commissioner. The District Collector, Solan maintains that the District Collector can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 114 as he can exercise it under Section 65 of the aforementioned Act. Section 65 appears in Chapter VII of the Act, whereas Section 114 appears in Chapter X of the aforesaid Act. Section 65 pertains to the revisional jurisdiction of the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, whereas Section 114(2) pertains to appeals against orders passed by the Collector as an Appellate Authority. Sub-section (3) of Section 114 relates to revisional powers in matters arising under this chapter, The appellate and revisional jurisdiction under this chapter is exercisable against the orders passed by the Land Reforms Officer. Land Reforms Officer is a creature enunciated under Chapter IX & X of the Act only and this expression does not appear in any other part of the Act. Chapter X offers a complete law in itself and appellate and revisional jurisdiction under this chapter is exercisable only in respect of those matters which arise under this chapter and are decided by the Land Reforms Officer. Clearly the provision contained in Section 65 is general in nature and confers revisional powers on Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, whereas, Section 114 is special in nature and plain reading of the Act makes it clear that revisional jurisdiction is conferred only on Financial Commissioner and not on Collector and Commissioner as has been erroneously concluded by District Collector, Solan. The provisions under the two sections are clearly distinguishable. Revision is not maintainable under Section 114 before District Collector and the District Collector Solan has fallen in error in entertaining a revision under this Section and has not applied his mind to the facts of the case. Another question could be, whether the present recommendation can be deemed to be made under Section 65 of the aforesaid Act. My considered view as noted above is that a general provision can not be interpreted and acted upon in derogation of a special provision and in case of any conflict between the two, special provision will have an over-riding effect and accordingly matter arising under Chapter X of the Act will have to be adjudicated in reference to the provisions made thereunder and District Collector is not competent to make any recommendation on any matter arising under this chapter. The present recommendations fail on this count also and consequently the recommendations made by the District Collector, Solan are turned down as not maintainable. In view of the discussion above other points raised in the recommendations need not be gone into since the recommendations that constituted basis thereof have been declared incompetent. 8. The copy of this order be sent to Secretary (Revenue) to circulate the same to the Divisional Commissioners and District Collectors for guidance and compliance. 9. Orders be communicated to the parties and file be consigned to record room after due completion. Recommendation dismissed.