1983 PLP 1171 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 520 of 1976 and Civil Petition No. 522 of 1976, as both involve a common question of law and are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High. Court, whereby both the matters were disposed of by a consolidated judgment. In support of these petitions, it is submitted that the petitioner who are landless tenants, were initially allotted certain areas in pursuance of the Scheme for sale and upgrading, framed under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation of 1959 (Martial Law Regulation 64 of 1959) in 1961. On further verification these areas were cancelled on 16‑4‑1964, because earlier, in exercise of the review powers, a much smaller area had, instead of the area earlier allotted, been confirmed in their favour on 13‑1‑1.90 (in Civil Petition No. 520 of 1976) and on 19‑2‑1964 (in Civil Petition No. 522 of 1976). However, the last mentioned allotment order was also cancelled by the Deputy Land Commissioner in review. on 23‑12‑1969 (in Civil Petition No. 520/ 1976) and on 20‑1‑1970 (in Civil Petition No. 522 1976). These orders having been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal before the Land Commissioner, in revision before the Chief Land Com missioner and in writ petitions before the High Court, hence these petition for leave to appeal. In support of these petitions it has, inter alia, been argued that in reviewing the earlier orders of the Deputy Land Commissioner, dated 13‑1.‑1964 and 19‑2‑1964 after the expiry of nearly six years on 23‑12‑1963 and 20‑1‑1970 the successor Deputy Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction. The power to review is conferred in rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959. Sub‑rule (1) of rule 11 provides :‑ "11(1).‑The Chief Land Commissioner, a Land Commissioner, or a Deputy Land Commissioner may of his own motion or on an application of any party interested made to him in that behalf, within ten days from the date of the order,, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm, any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office." In the instant case, the Deputy Land Commissioner had reviewed the earlier order "of his own motion" and the learned Judge in the High Court, while rejecting a contention similar to the one raised above before him observed that it had no' merit on the ground that the period of limitation, namely, ten days applied only to an application by an interested party and not to suo motu review. In this connection, attention was invited to this court's judgment in Nawab Haji Khair Muhammad Khan v. The State (P L D 1966 S C 604), wherein it was observed "It should be quite clear from the fact that power is given to the Chief Land Commissioner to interfere in review with an order passed by "any of his predecessors in office" that a limitation of 10 days between the date of the order reviewed and the reviewing order cannot conceivably have been contemplated. It is quite obvious that the period of 10 days. from the making of the order is to apply only to the making of an application for review by an interested party." Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dictum in the said judgment would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The review in the said case, was undertaken after 20 days, whereas in the present cases it was undertaken after nearly six years. In any case, it was further submitted, that the learned Judges had over looked a very important clause in rule 11, namely, clause (3), which laid down. "(3) Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by an officer in pursuance of the provisions of the Regulation and these Rules may at any time, be corrected by such officer or his successor in office as soon as any such error has come to or been brought to his notice." On the basis of this provision, it was argued that where the intention of the rule‑maker was not to prescribe any period of limitation, this was expressly provided for as, for instance in the above clause. The absence of a similar prescription in clause (1) of rule 11 indicated that a review there under could not be undertaken at any time, even in cases of suo motu review. The contention raised has some force. We would, therefore, grant leave to consider it further. ' Security for costs in the sum of Rs. 2,000 .in each case. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents. Possession of the petitioners not to be disturbed if they are still in actual physical possession of the disputed areas. S. Q. Leave granted.