P L D 1977 Lahore 177 (PLP)

K. E. CHAUHAN, J.‑The dispute in this case is about an area of 162 kanals of land situated in Mauza ltakh Kot Mithan Sharif, Tehsil Rajanpur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. This land was surrendered by Sardar Bachey Khan a declarant land owner under the Land Reforms Regulation No. 59 of 1964. The petitioner wants to have this land under the Sale Scheme on the basis of his having been entered as a tenant in L. C. Form No. IX during the harvest of Kharif 1958 or Rabi 1959 or both. Some enquiry was conducted by S. A. L. C., as a result whereof he in his report dated 13‑9‑1967 proposed the land in dispute to the petitioner but the proposal was not accepted by the learned Assistant Land Commissioner by means of his order, dated 12‑4‑1968, on the ground that the petitioner was not in cultivating possession of the land and the entries showing him to be in possession were of a doubtful nature. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Deputy Land Commissioner on 6‑8‑1968. The petitioner filed a revision, which, however, was accepted by the learned Land Commissioner on 14‑1‑1969. He on the factual plan accepted the petitioner to be in cultivating possession in during the relevant harvest of the relevant Khasra numbers. Later on, however, the successor of the learned Land Commissioner, after obtaining the necessary permission of the learned Chief Land Commissioner reviewed the order of his predecessor and upset the same on 21‑7‑1970. He examined the matter in detail; attended to the various other circumstances and documents mentioned in his order and came to the conclusion that the entries in the register/Form L. C. IX were interpolated for the purpose of showing the petitioner to be in possession. After giving cogent reasons, he held him to be ineligible to have the land in dispute under the Sale Scheme. The petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the learned Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab. Lahore, on 21‑1‑1971. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid proceedings and orders, the petitioner has come up in writ petition to this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, which reads as follows:‑ "

11. Review.‑(I) The Chief Land Commissioner, a Land Commis sioner, 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 ton 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: Provided that‑ (a) (i) a Land Commissioner shall not review an order passed by his predecessor‑in‑office without first obtaining the sanction of the Chief Land Commissioner; (ii) a Deputy Land Commissioner shall not review any order whether passed by himself or by any of his predecessors‑in‑office without first obtaining the sanction of the Land Commissioner of the area concerned; (b) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless a reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and he heard; and (c) an order against which an appeal or a petition for revision has been preferred shall not be reviewed. (2) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirm ing on review a previous order. . (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 loon as any such error has come to or been brought to his notice," The first point argued by the learned counsel was that even though under rule 11 (1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, there vested a jurisdiction in a Land Commissioner to review an order of his predecessor, but according to him no review could possibly take place on the factual plan. The precise objection was that if an earlier Land Commissioner had held his client as to be in possession of the relevant Khasra numbers during the relevant period, the said view could not have been disturbed by a successor Land Commissioner on merits. Learned counsel wanted to support his plea by referring to sub‑rule (3) of rule 11 in which it was written that "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". His precise submission was that sub‑rule (3) quali fied sub‑rule (1) of rule 11 with the result that a power of Review was not available to disturb findings on the merits of a case and was limited to acci dental or clerical mistakes only. The contention raised by the learned counsel has no merit. As we see rule 11 (1) it contains no prohibitions or limitations in the exercise of the power of review and in the absence of any such prohibitions or restrictions, it is not possible to hold that a review on a question of fact could not properly be made by the authorities concerned after attending to all the evidence and other considerations and circumstances which may be relevant in a given particular case. Any other view, would lead to injustice, inasmuch as, it will not enable the authorities concerned to set right, wrong orders passed by them or their predecessors. Sub‑rule (3), to which reference was being made, was of the kind of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereunder arithmetical and clerical mistakes could be corrected by a Court of law, but the same in no way controlled the powers of review otherwise bestowed for instance under section 114 and Order XLVII, rule.

1. In that view of the matter, the plea raised by the learned counsel with regard to the scope of review on the part of the learned Land Commissioner is not sound and is hereby rejected. Be that as it may, another thing to be taken note of is that the petitioner did avail of the remedy of revision when he challenged the factual finding recorded against him by the learned Land Commissioner. The learned Chief Land Commissioner again attended to the said matter in Revision and himself gave a factual finding that the petitioner was not in possession during the relevant harvest. It is well settled, as laid down in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 189 that a finding of fact cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, especially when it is supported by the relevant evidence and attending circumstances of a case. This being the position in the instant case, it is not possible for us to take exception to the view recorded by the Land Reforms authorities against the petitioner.

3. It was then argued that the enquiry report, dated 13‑9‑1967, which had not been followed or approved by A. L. C. on 12‑4‑1968, ought to have been given preference, inasmuch as, it was compiled on the basis of various statements recorded by that officer. The aforesaid report, it may be mentioned, was merely a matter of opinion and was not binding on the higher Land Reform authorities who were well within their jurisdiction to competently assess the matter In hand and give their own finding thereon of course keeping in view the said report as well. The learned Land Commissioner and the learned Chief Land Commissioner did take the said report into consideration but did not agree with the same on the factual plan due to various reasons highlighted in their respective orders which appear to be quite cogent and to which no exception can be taken supported as they are by the record and the attending circumstances.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present writ petition which is concluded by a finding of fact, has no merit and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.