P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

S. 15 (3)‑Order refusing to review or confirming on review previous order‑Not appealable‑ Revision not barred. Section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act lays down that an appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or con firming on review a previous order. Where a provision of law is explicitly restricted to appeals it cannot by implication be taken to extend to revision petitions because their purpose and scope under the law are not precisely the same as those of appeals. Section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act does not bar a revision petition even where an order refusing to review or confirming, on review, a previous order has been passed by a Revenue Officer. P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 458 ref. This is a second revision under section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act reads with section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against an order of the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. The facts of the case are fairly simple. The petitioner was allotted some land in Chak No. 94/DB in Tahsil Yazman of Bahawalpur District in 1951. After sometime he applied for exchange of this land with other Government land situated in Chak No. 84/DB of the same Tahsil. The Collector rejected this application. The petitioner filed a review application before him. He, however, confirmed in review his order refusing exchange. Then the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner who rejected it, holding on the analogy of section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act that a revision petition was barred where a Revenue Officer had refused to review or had confirmed on review his previous order. One of the contentions of the petitioner before me is that the Additional Commissioner's order is erroneous because section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act bars an appeal, but not a revision application. This is correct. Section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act lays down that an appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order. Where a provision of law is explicitly restricted to appeals it cannot by implication be taken to extend to revision petitions because their purpose and scope under the law are not precisely the same as those of appeals. No doubt in P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458, the learned Financial Commissioner made the remark :‑ "In normal circumstances I am opposed. on principle to entertaining in the guise of a revision petition what is to all intents and purposes an appeal in cases where the Legislature has decreed that no appeal shall lie". Yet the learned Financial Commissioner entertained the revision petition in that case and accepted it. As a matter of fact the powers of revision vested in the Financial Commissioner are very wide, and 1 must hold that so far as the legal proposition is concerned section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act does not bar a revision petition even where an order refusing to review or confirming, on review, a previous order has been passed by a Revenue Officer. On merits, however, this petition cannot stand. The application for exchange of land was refused by the Collector on the basis of a settled policy of the Government. He found no valid reason, in the course of review proceedings, to change his order ; and I see no ground to interfere with it either. In effect, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.