2000 PLP 577 (MLD)

(c)??????? to the Board of Revenue only on a point of law, when the order is made by the Commissioner: Provided that: ‑‑ (i)???????? when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie; (ii)??????? when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final. Explanation.‑‑(1) An order passed in review, modifying or reversing a previous order, shall be deemed to be an original order 'for the purposes of this section. (2)??????? An order shall not be confirmed, modified or reversed in appeal unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of or against the order appealed from.

7. Following is the Notification issued on 1‑7‑1991 by the Government of the Punjab (Revenue Department) published as NLR 1991 Punjab Statutes 22:‑‑ "Notification No.6399‑91/22185‑E(F)III, dated the 1st July, 1991.‑?In exercise of the powers conferred under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (W.P. Act XVII of 1967) and in supersession of Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department's Notifications No. 1773‑82/1908 E(F)III and No.3773‑82/1910‑E(F) III, dated 30‑4‑1982 and No.1590‑89/1071? LR.IV, dated 18‑6‑1989 the Government of the Punjab is pleased to confer, all the powers of Collector under the said Act upon (a) all the Assistant Commissioners in the Punjab except Assistant Commissioners of sub‑division in Lahore District and (b) Additional Deputy Commissioners General), Lahore City and Lahore Cantonment to be exercised within the area of their respective jurisdiction, subject to the general superintendence and control of the District Collectors concerned except the following cases which will, however, continue to be taken cognizance by District Collector :‑‑ (i)???????? Appeal against the orders of Assistant Collector 1st Grade in cases of partition; (ii)??????? Correction in Revenue Records; (iii)?????? Sanction for review of mutations; (iv)?????? Suspension and remission of Land Revenue; (v)??????? Creation of demand of Land Revenue; (vi)?????? Appointment or removal of Headmen (Lamberdars); and (vii) Allocation of Revenue Circles among Tehsildars and Naib?Tehsildars. BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (Sd.) (SECRETARY), GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB. REVENUE DEPARTMENT. No.6399‑91 /22985‑E(F)III A copy is forwarded for the information and necessary action to:‑‑ (1)??????? All the Commissioners of Divisions in the Punjab. (2)??????? All the Additional Commissioners (Revenue) in the Punjab. (3)??????? Secretary (Settlements), Board of Revenue, Punjab. (4)??????? Director Land Records, Punjab, Lahore. (5)??????? Director Punjab Revenue Academy, 161‑C Peco Road, Township, Lahore. (6)??????? All the Deputy Commissioners in the Punjab. (7)??????? Scalement Officers, D.G. Khan and Rajanpur. (8)??????? Tlse Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur. (9)??????? All the Assistant Commissioners in the Punjab. (10)????? The Political Assistants, D.G. Khan and Rajanpur. (11)????? The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore City and Lahore Cants. (12)????? Registrar, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. (13)????? Librarian, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. (14)????? Private Secretary to the Minister for Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. (Sd.) ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB; REVENUE DEPARTMENT."

8. It is proper to express that section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 deals with the procedure for snaking of that part of periodical records which relates to the landowners. Under subsection (6) of the said section 42 the mutation of inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or acquisition of any right otherwise is sanctioned by the Revenue Officer after the entry is made by the Patwari, verified by the Halqa Qanaongo and placed before the Tehsildar or Naib‑Tehsildar (Assistant Collector Grade‑I/Grade?II) who can sanction a mutation. If any interested person is aggrieved by the order of the sanction of mutation an appeal is competent under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the Collector when the order is made by an Assistant Collector of either grade. According to the aforesaid Notification, dated 1‑7‑1991 the appeal is maintainable before the Assistant Commissioner exercising the powers of Collector and not befog the District Collector. The appeal is maintainable before the Commissioner when the order is made by‑ a Collector and the appeal is preferred before the Board of Revenue only on a point of law when the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner. A careful perusal of section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with aforesaid Notification, dated 1‑7‑1991 has made out that the District Collector Deputy Commissioner stands eclipsed therefrom, and thus, the vires of the order, dated 30‑9‑1998 whereby the impugned Mutation No.6332 was sanctioned could not be examined and analysed by the District Collector, Hafizabad (respondent No. 1). Rather he was not competent to entertain the miscellaneous application on 30‑9‑1998. In the aforesaid Notification, dated 1st July, 1991 the nature of the cases of which the District Collector can take cognizance have been enumerated who can proceed thereof on the judicial side. The District Collector cannot control the Revenue Officers so as to assume their role. This impression stands shattered in view of the very issuance of the said Notification, dated 1‑7‑1991 whereby arrangement has been made about the conferment of powers of Collector on the Assistant Commissioners and rather about the exercise of powers of District Collector, the water‑tight compartment of jurisdiction has been created/established by specifically enumerating his domain in the Revenue hierarchy. The appeals incorporated in section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 are not within the jurisdiction of the District Collector. There is the maxim "A communi observatia non est recedendum" i.e. "where a thing was provided to be done in a particular manner it had to be done in that manner and if not done so would not be lawful". Perhaps the Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad is under the impression that he has the overall supervisory jurisdiction upon his subordinates in the District in their judicial working as well by taking up all the matters at his own end. A District Head of every department has to control and supervise the working of his subordinates. However, the impression of their District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad is violative of good governance as the same can only materialise if the law of the land is respected by the civil servants. No doubt he is the representative of the State. However, he cannot be allowed to project his powers in this illegal manner. The impugned order, dated 21‑10‑1998 is beyond the scope of the substantive and procedural statutory law. The important point to be kept in mind is that the power and authority to set the law in motion is linked with the substantive jurisdiction without which the application, dated 30‑9‑1998 submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, could not be entertained and the proceedings could not be initiated and culminated. Due to the lack of jurisdiction about the proceedings with the application, dated 30‑9‑1998 it can safely be held that the impugned order, dated 21‑10‑1999 is without jurisdiction, and thus, illegal. A Deputy Commissioner has the supervisory jurisdiction over his subordinates yet he cannot trespass into the jurisdiction of any other such officer. The water‑tight compartments of jurisdiction have been enumerated in section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the preference and hearing of appeals in the Revenue hierarchy. The Notification, dated 1‑7‑1991 was conferred the power of Collector on the Assistant Commissioner within the territorial limits of his sub‑division. Section 161 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with Notification, dated 1‑7‑1991 has eclipsed the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad to decide the application, dated 30‑9‑1998 made by Bashir Ahmad respondent No.4 before him. It is proper to express that Mutation No.16332 was sanctioned on 30‑9‑1998 while the application for setting aside the same was directly moved before the Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad on the same date and with a considerable speed the application was partly disposed of by setting aside the mutation and referring the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for holding the inquiry who was made competent to record the evidence of the parties. This novel method/procedure has not been provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Against the order of mutation only and only the appeal is competent under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act. The supervisory jurisdiction of the District Collector cannot go to the extent of suo motu action. There are water‑tight compartments of jurisdiction in all the departments. The jurisdiction of one subordinate Officer cannot be exercised by the Officer of the same department posted at the high pedestal. It is, thus, held that against the sanction of a mutation under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 the appeal is to be preferred before and heard by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Hafizabad and the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Hafizabad has no jurisdiction to entertain any application and to pass the impugned order, dated 21‑10‑1998 which is simply coram non judice from the date of its announcement.

9. At this stage I am tempted to express that Bashir Ahmad seems to have gone to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Hafizabad due to misconception where the matter is pending and thereafter, the matter remained pending before this Court. In case of preference of appeal he may file the application under section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, on the ground of proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad and defending this matter before this Court, before the Appellate Court in the Revenue hierarchy which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.

10. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition, set aside the impugned order, dated 21‑10‑1998, dismiss the application filed by Bashir Ahmad respondent No. l before the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Hafizabad and close the proceedings initiated before him. However, Bashir Ahmad petitioner may proceed in accordance with law through the preference of an appeal before the Court of competent jurisdiction as contemplated under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 which shall be disposed of in accordance with law without feeling prejudiced by this judgment. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./K‑121/L??????? Petition allowed.