1992 PLP 629 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑"Commissioner" and "Additional Commissioner"‑‑‑Distinction of the two terms/offices elaborated. Ch. Khurshid Alam for Petitioner. Manzoor Ahmed Senior Clerk for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1990. This revision petition is directed under section 164, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 against the order dated 15‑3‑1989 of the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, whereby he reviewed the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division dated 24‑9‑1984.

2. Brief facts of the case are that State land comprised of Sq. No.29, Fields Nos.8/1, 9 to 12, 13/1, 18/1,19 to 22 and 23/1 situated in Chak No.345 J.B. Tehsil Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh was leased out to Muhammad Ishaq petitioner for a period of five years on 31‑7‑1980. After the approval of the lease by the District Collector, the petitioner was put in possession of the land on 31‑12‑1980. The petitioner applied for grant of proprietary rights of the land under notification No.1925‑83/1253‑CLI, dated 20‑4‑1983 to the District Collector, Toba Tak Singh. The District Collector, vide his order dated 11‑4‑1984, dismissed the petition holding that according to the said notification only such lessees of State land were eligible for the grant of proprietary rights who had been in continuous cultivation possession of the land since before Kharif 1980. The possession of the State land was delivered to the petitioner on 31‑12‑1980 i.e. for the harvest Rabi 1980‑

81. As such the petitioner was not eligible to the grant of proprietary rights. The petitioner assailed this order in appeal in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who vide order dated 24‑9‑1984 accepted it holding that his possession on the land in question was established from February .1980. The District Collector therefore suggested to the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division for review of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on the ground that the order of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) was passed in violation of the instructions on the subject. The proposal of the Collector, Toba Tek Singh was forwarded with the recommendation of Commissioner, Faisalabad Division to the Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue for necessary permission which was accorded vide Memo. No. 1128‑85/2841‑CLI, dated 22‑9‑1985. The Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, vide his impugned order held that the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) was passed on 24‑9‑1984 ‑and the application for its review was made vide Memo dated 22‑12‑1984 received in his office on 24‑12‑1984. Thus it was made in time. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) was passed contrary to the instructions on the subject and terms/conditions of the scheme, the Board of Revenue have accorded the permission to review the same vide Memo. No.1128‑85/2841 CLI, dated 22‑9‑1985. He reviewed the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Commissioner was not competent to review an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) as it had too be reviewed by the officer who had made that order or his successor‑in‑office. The Commissioner could not be an Addl. Commissioner's successor‑in‑office. The District Collector's request for review of the order was barred by time and there was no 'reason for condonation of the delay. The petitioner was not even given any notice of the grounds for the review. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. '

4. The State was represented through Manzoor Ahmad, Senior Clerk, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Toba Tek Singh, who produced the record. .

5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The time limit prescribed for review under section 163 (2) (b) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 is 90 days. The D.C./Collector, Toba Tak Singly moved for review of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division's order dated 24‑9‑1984 on 22‑12‑1984 vide his letter No.3673/CA/CCVI, which was received in the Commissioner's Office on 23‑12‑1984 according to receiving official note. (It has been wrongly held in the impugned order that it was received on 24‑12‑1984). The review petition was therefore within time.

6. The Commissioner thereupon moved the Board of Revenue for sanction of the review which was accorded by the Board of Revenue vide its Memo. No.1128‑85/2841‑CLI, dated 22‑9‑1985. The impugned order shows that the present petitioner Muhammad Ishaq was duly heard through his counsel by the Commissioner before making the impugned order. His objection that he was not given any notice of the grounds of review, is not borne out from the record. The petitioner or his counsel could have inspected the file of the case if they had so desired and no separate notice of the grounds of review was necessary.

7. This brings us to the third contention raised by the learned counsel that the Commissioner was not competent to review the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). The terms `Commissioner' and 'Additional Commissioner' have been defined in sections 8 and 9 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act respectively. The powers and duties of the Commissioner under the Land Revenue Act and, for that purpose, the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act extend to the entire division; whereas the Additional Commissioner can exercise all or any of the powers under these Acts, subject to the general supervision and control of the Commissioner of the Division. It is thus obvious that an Additional Commissioner, While exercising some or all powers of the Commissioner is still subject to the supervision and control of the Commissioner. Under section 14 (2) W.P.L.RA. the Commissioner has the power to withdraw any case pending before other Revenue Officer under his control. Thus section 14 (2) read with section 163 ibid does not preclude the Commissioner from reviewing any order passed by the Additional Commissioner as he was quite competent to withdraw a particular case including a case for review to his own file. In the instant case the Commissioner moved the Board of Revenue for permission to review the Additional Commissioner's order and the permission for the review was specifically granted by the Board of Revenue to the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division and not to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Thus the Commissioner has neither overstepped his jurisdiction nor committed any illegality in making the impugned order.

8. The last contention raised by the petitioner in the memo of revision is that he fulfilled all the conditions for the proprietary rights and thus he was eligible therefor. The Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department's Notification No. 1925‑83/1253‑CLI, dated 20‑4‑1983 prescribes the conditions for grant of proprietary rights in the State land given on temporary cultivation lease. According to its clause 1 (a) such rights can be granted to those lessees who are prepared to fulfil these conditions. Clause 3 (iii) lays down that such person has to be in continuous cultivating possession of the said land since before Kharif 1980. Clause 18 (h) defines lessee as a person holding State land under a temporary cultivation lease which shall not be deemed to include any holder of power of attorney on behalf of such lessee. It is admitted that the petitioner was granted temporary cultivation lease for 5 years on 29‑7‑1980 and the possession of the land was given to him on 31‑12‑1980. Thus he was not eligible under the conditions of the aforesaid Notification as he was not a lessee in the crucial period. It was contended that the petitioner was a sub tenant under the previous lessee and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) relied on the petitioner's affidavit overlooking the fact that a sub tenant is not covered by the definition of lessee as given in clause 18 (h) of the notification ibid. The impugned order has, therefore, been passed by the Commissioner on valid considerations.

9. In view of the foregoing the revision petition is deltoid of force and is accordingly dismissed.

10. The judgment was reserved, therefore, the parties shall be informed of this order. AA./410/R Revision dismissed.