2005 PLP 92 (CLC)

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that one Muhammad Rafiq son of Sanio was granted 16-00 acres of agricultural land from U.A. 283 of Deh Lukrani, Taluka Kotdigi, District Khairpur, on harap conditions void order, dated 9-9-1998 of the then Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad. The allotment so made in favour of Muhammad Rafiq was challenged by the present applicant in land grant appeal No.C-1-RAC of 2001 which was filed before the erstwhile Additional Commissioner-I, Sukkur against Muhammad Rafiq (respondent No. 1) and the then Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad (respondent No.2). The grant was ultimately cancelled vide order, dated 19-6-2001 of the erstwhile Additional Commissioner-I, Sukkur on the main grounds:-- (i) The land in question was situated to Deh Lukrani whereas the allottee/grantee was resident of another Deh nameiv Bafo. (ii) The allottee/grantee, at the time of allotment was a minor of hardly 14 years age.

3. The operative part/concluding para. of the impugned order, is reproduced as under:-- "In view of above facts, I cancel the grant in favour of respondent and direct that it should be disposed of afresh in accordance with the land grant policy in vogue. The appeal is admitted and upheld to that extent."

4. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 19-6-2001 of the defunct Additional Commissioner I, Sukkur, Abdul Lateef has filed the present application for revision on the sole ground that the defunct Additional Commissioner-I, Sukkur sent the case to Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage for fresh disposal which amounted to "remand" and as such he acted beyond his powers.

5. Heard the parties at length.

6. The point to ponder in the present case is whether the directives given by the defunct Additional Commissioner-I, Sukkur to the defunct Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad that the land should be disposed of afresh in accordance with the land grant policy in vogue, tantamount to remand of the case within the meaning of subsection (3) of section 161 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 and within the meaning of third proviso to subsection (4)' of section 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, which both contemplate that no Revenue Officer other than the Board of Revenue shall have power to remand any case in appeal or revision to a lower authority.

7. The word "remand", as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Seven Edition) means to send a case or claim back to the Court or Tribunal from which it came for some further action. The plain meaning of the word, as held in Nazar Ali v. Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue 1991 MLD 1331 and 1981 CLC 1561, is to decide it in a manner in consonance with the law by adverting to merits of case and in accordance with law.

8. A plain reading of subsection (3) of section 161 and third proviso to subsection (4) of section 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, makes it abundant clear that it is the "case" which is not to be remanded by any Revenue Officer other than the Board of Revenue. The word "case" means a Judicial proceeding for the determination of a controversy between parties wherein rights are enforced or protected, or wrongs are prevented or redressed. In Noor Muhammad v. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, reported in PLD 1986 Lah. 237, the word "case", in legal parlance, has been defined as "an aggregate of facts which furnishes occasion for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a Court of justice".

9. In the instant case, the controversy was that the allottee/grantee Muhammad Rafique, being a minor, was not a Hari within the meaning of clause (f) of condition No.2 of the Statement of Conditions Notified vide Land Utilization Department's Notification No.SB-III/I 279/P/1704/89, dated 4-12-1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Land Grant Policy, 1989) and he, being the resident of another Deh, as envisaged in condition No.5 of the Land Grant Policy, 1989, was also not eligible for the allotment/grant of the land in question. By the cancellation of allotment/grant, this controversy stood finally decided. On the cancellation of allotment/grant the land allotted/granted to Muhammad Rafiq, automatically stood reverted to the pool of land available for allotment, which was to be put in schedule within the meaning of condition No.7(1) and was to be disposed of under the Land Grant Policy, 1989, regardless of the directives contained in the impugned order that the land should be disposed of afresh. These directive of the learned Additional Commissioner-I, Sukkur (defunct) are quite unwarranted and meaningless because the State land which is available for allotment or which becomes available for the allotment, is automatically to be disposed of afresh under the Land Grant Policy unless directed otherwise by the competent authority.

10. The outcome of the above discussion is that in the land grant Appeal No.0-1-RAC/2001 before the defunct Additional Commissioner , however, the subject-matter of the case was the allotment/grant of land in question and not the "land" itself. With the cancellation of allotment/grant of land, the case reached its logical end and it stood decided finally. The directives of the erstwhile Additional Commissioner-I, Sukkur that the land should be disposed of afresh in accordance with the Land Grant Policy were of advisory nature and they were not to be considered as "remand of the case" within the meaning of section 161(3) or within the meaning of third proviso to section 164(4) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967.

11. For the above detailed reasons, the present application for revision fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs. H.B.T./13/Reve. Revision dismissed.