P L D (Rev (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑My attention has been drawn to the phraseology introduced into section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as applicable to the former Bahawalpur State, by the West Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Ordinance, 1956. The following are the contents of subsection (4) as substituted by that Ordinance;‑ "(4) The Board of Revenue may in any case called for under subsection (1) and the Commissioner may in any case reported to him under subsection (3) pass such order as it or he may think fit". This phraseology is different from the corresponding phraseology in the Punjab Act as applicable to the Punjab. In the latter case, the wording is as follows :‑ "The Board of Revenue may in any case called under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for under subsection (2) or reported under subsection (3) pass such order as it or he may think fit". It appears that a lacuna has been left in the Bahawalpur law in cases where the Commissioner calls for a record because no provision has been made regarding the connection of the Commissioner with the case which he has called for. The law should have laid down that the Commissioner would either pass orders on the case or report the case to the Board of Revenue. In the present case, the Commissioner was moved in revision by Muhammad Ibrahim and the Commissioner passed orders to the effect that the Tahsildar's order for the issue of a warrant of Muhammad Ibrahim's arrest was quashed and the Tahsildar was directed to recover the arrears of land revenue from the Lambardar and other defaulters. The above discussion of the law indicates that the Commissioner was not entitled under the law to pass the order. I therefore, direct that this order dated 3rd April 1956 should be quashed. The effect of my above decision should not be that the respondent's arrest should be considered to have been validly ordered by the Tahsildar. I am in any case entitled to modify the orders of Tahsildars. I am convinced that the Commissioner interpreted the law correctly in stating that the respondent cannot be treated as a defaulter for purposes of issuing coercive processes under the Land Revenue Act. The respondent may have purchased the wheat from the land revenue payers or may have held that wheat as a commission agent. But once the wheat has been sold, then the commission agent cannot be treated as a defaulter. I, therefore, direct that the Tahsildar's order directing the arrest of the respondent should be quashed. The effect of my decision will be that I shall be replacing the Commissioner's order dated 3rd April 1956 by a new order in the same terms as the order replaced. This will remove any doubt regarding the legal position. The petition for revision will be considered to have been rejected except as indicated above. Judgment was reserved in this case. Due information should, therefore, be sent to the counsel for the petitioner. A. H. Order quashed.