P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Principles to be observed, stated‑West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8. (b) Revision‑

Collector in review upsetting previous order without observing provisions of law and practice‑Revision competent. Niemat Khan for Petitioner. Qazi Ahmad Khan for Respondent. This is a Lambardari case and the facts, briefly, are that the Collector, Sialkot appointed Rehmat Ullah, petitioner as Lambardar of village Ausha, district Sialkot, in a vacancy which had occurred due to the migration of non‑Muslims to India. Qamar Din respondent was ignored because he was an absentee landlord. Later on an application made to him by Qamar Din, the Collector reversed his previous order and appointed Qamar Din, as Lambardar in place of Rehmat Khan. While upsetting his previous order. the Collector observed that his earlier order was not based on facts as in reality Qamar Din was residing in the estate to which the Lambardari belonged and was not an absentee. The learned Additional Commissioner Lahore maintained this order in appeal. A revision has now been filed by Rahmat Ullah. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector passed his first order, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, after considering the merits of both the candidates and there was no justification for reviewing this order afterwards. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that at the time of passing the first order, the true facts of the case were not brought to his notice and the order passed was erroneous and was quite properly set right by means of a review. This is not a sound argument and has no force in law. The Land Revenue Act does not lay down any specific principles for granting review appli cation ; but it would be quite appropriate in these circumstances to seek guidance from the provisions contained in the Board of Revenue Act or the Civil Procedure Code. Section 8 of the former Act lays down that a review can be granted by the Board of Revenue only if two conditions are satisfied. Firstly, that some new and important matter and evidence which after the exercise oil due diligence was not available to the party invoking the special jurisdiction of the Board or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The C. P. C. gives more extensive powers in addition to the two circumstances mentioned above in that, a review may be granted for any other sufficient reason. This particular case had been decided by the Collector after going through the merits and there was no material before him for re‑opening it on a disputed question of fact. The question whether the respondent was a resident of the estate was in dispute even at that time and had been gone into by him. He had then come to the conclusion against the respondent. It was highly improper in these circum stances for him to re‑open this matter which was again disputed before him and was not conclusively proved one way or the other. The correct course for the Collector was to reject the review application and direct the aggrieved party to go in appeal before the Commissioner. Secondly, the procedure adopted by the Collector was definitely objectionable and contrary to the provisions of law and the practice which has generally been followed by Revenue Officers. In my opinion he was not justified in reviewing his previous order dated 26‑2‑1962 which is restored. The revision petition accordingly stands accepted. K. M. A. Petition accepted.