P L D (Rev (PLP)

NASIR AHMAD.‑This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 30th June 1955 by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in a lambardari case on the ground that it was time‑barred. The A. C. O. Haveli Project Colony exercising the powers of Collector, appointed the respondent, Sardar Muhammad to the post of lambardar in Chak No. 683/G. B. as he belonged to the predominant tribe in the village and came of a family of lambardars. Ghulam Muhammad petitioner filed an appeal but without a copy of the order of the Collector and the learned Commissioner held that in these circumstances the appeal was not duly presented. He however, observed that the petitioner had been making efforts to obtain a copy but as he had not made a specific application for permission to file the appeal without a copy of the order he i.e., the Commis sioner, was not prepared to dispense with the copy which he considered necessary. Ghulam Muhammad has now come up in revision. Several grounds have been taken up for acceptance of the revision and I will take them up one by one. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once an appeal is admitted, and in this particular case it is contended that the appeal was admitted as proceedings were started by officials of the Commissioner, it should be assumed that the Commis sioner had dispensed with the required copy. This contention to my mind is incorrect in view of the clear finding of the Commissioner himself that as a specific application for per mission to file the appeal without a copy of the judgment had not been made he had not dispensed with the copy of the judgment. In these circumstances a presumption in favour of the petitioner cannot be drawn. It is however, urged that even if this contention is not accepted the law does not anywhere lay down that when filing an appeal before a Revenue Officer a copy of the order appealed against should also be submitted along with the memorandum of appeal. Rules of Procedure for observance by Revenue Officers are framed by the Provincial Government under section 17 of the Land Revenue Act and the rules which have actually been framed i.e., the Land Revenue Rules; do not specifically state that a cops of the order appealed against should be filed along with the memoranuum of appeal. A distinction is sought to be drawn between the procedure to be observed by Revenue Courts and by Revenue Officers, and that the provisions of Civil P. C. are only applicable to the former. It is, however, not denied that as a matter of practice all appeals filed before Revenue Officers are accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against. In reality a Revenue Officer sitting in appeal is more akin to a judicial tribunal and is not merely an executive officer administering summary justice. Keeping in view the existing practice referred to above which has been followed invariably over a long period, I would uphold the view of the learned Commissioner that it was necessary to file a copy of the order appealed against along with the memorandum of appeal. As a copy was not filed the petitioner should have applied to the Appellate Authority to dispense with it before the appeal could be considered to have been regularly lodged. This was not done. The other point raised is that under the circumstances of the case the Appellate Authority i.e., the Commissioner should have exercised his discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act in favour of the petitioner. It is admitted at the same time that no application for the exercise of this discretion was made to him, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Commissioner should have done this suo moto. The law regarding the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to cases before Revenue Officers is contained in the well known ruling Nawab Sir Mehr Shah v. Lieut. Dewan Sahib Khan (P L D (Rev.) 1950 Pb. 220). It is laid down that time shall run from the date on which an order is pronounced and both section 153 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act exclude section 5 of the letter Act from proceedings under the former. An amendment of section 153 of the Land Revenue Act was made under Act XIX of 1955 which came into force on 9th April 1955, and this runs as follows :‑ "In question of the admission and the computation of the period for an appeal from or an application for the review of an order under this Act the limitation therefore shall be governed by the Limitation Act, 1908". It thus seems that section 5 of the Act is now applicable to appeals admitted under the Land Revenue Act but the appeal in the present proceedings was lodged before the Commissioner on 6th April 1955, when the amendment had not been brought on the statute. Under the law then in force section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to these proceedings. For the reasons given above I would hold that this revision application is not tenable and it stands dismissed. Parties should be informed. A. H. Petition dismissed.