P L D (Rev (PLP)

NAWABZAIDA SAIDULLAH KHAN, F. C.‑This is a most deplorable case in which I have been called upon to give a finding in so far that after the order of the Collector, Shahpur, dated the 31st January 1949, and the rejection of the review application filed by the petitioner dated the 12th April 1949 there was no room left for the institution of an appeal before the Commissioner vide section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act and instead of keeping the petitioner in suspense throughout the proceedings before the learned Commissioner and the waste of time a direction should have been given by the Com missioner to the petitioner that as he had already exhausted his right by filing a review application before the Collector, which was rejected, no appeal lay to him. As it is, the case was taken up by me on the revision side and, besides the learned counsel for the petitioner (Khwaja Abdur Rahim) and the representatives of the petitioner, the Government Pleader represented the Crown, were present and heard. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case was that there was a glaring defect in the procedure adopted by the learned Collector in the assessment of the Agricultural Income Tax in so far that having once determined the amount of the Agricultural Income Tax of Rs. 1,16,588 on the 31st January 1949, it was wrong on his part to have effected an increase in the amount to the extent of 28,035 in the subsequent mutalaba for the year 1948 without giving any notice and hearing to his client under section 15 (1) (c) of the Land Revenue Act. The learned counsel proceeded to say that, besides this grave irregularity amounting to miscarriage of justice, the learned Collector also erred in regarding the khush haisiyati as a part and parcel of the land revenue for the purposes of the assessment of the agricultural income tax. The contention of the learned Government Pleader, on tire other hand, was that there was no defect whatsoever worth the name in the procedure adopted by the learned Collector ill determining the amount of the agricultural income tax in this case and that the khush haisiyati was a part and parcel of the land revenue on which an assessment of agricultural income tax was justified. After having given the matter may most careful consider ation I am of the view, which has also been shared and agreed to by the parties to this revision petition, that, in fairness to all concerned, the case should be remanded to the learned Collector, who should afford an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and then passing an order of assessment afresh in this case. An opportunity should also be afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence, if any, available with him with regard to the second point‑viz. whether the khush haisiyati is a part and parcel of the land revenue and as such can be assessed to agricultural income tax. The realizations of the tax from the petitioner should proceed in the usual form and may not be deferred pending the disposal of this case. A settlement of accounts, if any, can be effected in the light of the decision taken. Remanded. A. H. Case remanded.