P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

H. A. MAJID.‑

This case arises from the North‑West Frontier Province Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1950, section 10 whereof provides that any person aggrieved from an order of the Collector under the Act may appeal to the Revenue and Divisional Commissioner, North‑West Frontier Province, within a period of 90 days. The suit, which the present respondents had lodged under the Act, was decided against them by the Collector. An appeal lodged by them before the Revenue and Divisional Commissioner was decided on 2nd October 1954. On the basis of this decision, they ought possession of the mortgaged land land the Collector decided on 9th May 1955, that if a certain amount of money was deposited by them, he would issue orders for the dispossession of the present petitioner. The latter appealed to the Revenue and Divisional Commissioner and the appeal was decided by the present Commissioner, Peshawar Division, on 31st January 1956. The term " Revenue and Divisional Commissioner, North‑West Frontier Province" had been replaced by the term "Commissioner" in the parent Act by the West Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1955. The present Commissioner, Peshawar Division, was, therefore, competent to dispose of the present petitioner's appeal in January 1956. It appears, however, that 'the said Order of 1955, was replaced by the West Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Ordinance 1956, in March 1956. The same change in section 10 of the parent Act was provided for, This Ordinance has now become obsolete and the conclusion is that at present the said section 10 of the parent Act remains unamended. Before the establishment of West Pakistan, the appellate orders of the Revenue and Divisional Commissioner were final and there was no higher authority for exercising any further appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The question which has been argued before me is whether the Board of Revenue, of which I am a Member, has been given any revisional jurisdiction as a result of the provisions made under section 4 (1) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Ordinance, 1956, which replaced an Ordinance of a similar 4 nature issued in 11955. The provision is that the Beard of Revenue can exercise general superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts in West Pakistan. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the term "superintendence" includes " Judicial superuitendence". There is no doubt that in certain cases the Courts in the Indo‑Pakistan Sub‑continent have interpreted the term "superintendence" to include "revisional jurisdiction." I would have asked the other Members of the Board of Revenue to sit with me in a Bench in order to hear arguments on this general point, because the matter is of sufficient importance to justify such a step. I have, however, come to the conclusion that such a reference to a Full Bench may wait for some other occasion, because the present case is not fit for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction on merits. The original suit was for the restitution of mortgaged land, the mortgage having been effected by means of two transactions before the crucial date mentioned in the Act of 1950. It, however, appeared that there was another mortgage of the same lands effected subsequent to the said crucial date. The decision of the Commissioner dated 2nd October 1954, was to the effect that the mortgages effected before the said crucial date would be extinguished and that the present respondents would have the right to redeem the property on payment of Rs. 19,767 to the other party: The Commissioner did not pass a definite order, to the effect that possession should be allowed to the present respondents if the said amount of money was deposited in Court for the benefit of the present petitioner. Thus, it became necessary for the Collector to interpret the order of the Commissioner and his interpretation, which was announced on 9th May 1955, was that if the said money was deposited in his Court he would issue a warrant for the dispossession of the present petitioner. The Commissioner refused to alter this decision of the Collector. The Commissioner's order dated 2nd October 1954,con tained the following as the concluding paragraph:‑ " Some discrepancies in respect of Khasra numbers were pointed out by the counsel for the respondents. At the time of redemption care should be taken that the land should be redeemed in respect of Khasra numbers‑which are mentioned in the two deeds of 1917 and 23rd November 1918." The Collector on 9th May 1955, and the Commissioner on 31st January 1956 appear quite justified in concluding that the Revenue and Divisional Commissioner intended on 2nd October 1954, that the Collector would take action for the dispossession of the present petitioner on the basis of the decision which he was announcing. The petitioner admits that the power of revision has not been given to the Board of Revenue by means of any specific provision of a Statute. Such power is only to be assumed from the use of the word "superintendence" in section 4 (1) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Ordinance. It does b not appear that the Commissioner's order dated 31st January 1956 is beyond his jurisdiction. There is no authority requiring that where a mortgaged land is being resituated under the Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1950, of N: W.F.P., the extra charge involved in a mortgage executed subsequent to the crucial date should be paid by the mortgagor only after suing the mortgagee in a Civil Court for its redemption. If the mortgagor is entitled to the restitution of his mortgaged lands, it is only fair that he should obtain possession after paying the extra charge through the agency of the Collector as early as possible. Such an arrangement is quite fair and I would not accept the position that when such an arrangement has been ordered by the Collector and the Commissioner. I should decide to intervene in favour of the mortgagee. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision. A.H. Petition dismissed