1976 PLP 26 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑‑‑The petitioner herein has been unsuccessful in competition with respondent 4 in securing the allotment of certain land under the Horse Breeding Scheme and having ultimately failed before the Board rtf Revenue, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine by a learned single Judge vide order dated 22‑8‑1974, against which he now seeks leave to appeal. It appears that the petitioner was initially granted the tenancy for the purpose of horse breeding which order upon appeal by respondent 4 was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. However, on a revision by respondent 4 herein, the learned Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 10‑8‑1974 after calling for a report from the District Remount Officer, set aside the above order in favour of the petitioner and sanctioned the tenancy in favour of respondent

4. In the High Court the petitioner questioned the validity of the order dated 10‑8‑1974 of the learned Member Board of Revenue mainly on the ground that it was beyond his competence to set aside the concurrent order of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner of allotment in his favour. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner was that revisional jurisdiction under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act was limited which did not permit the Board of Revenue to go behind the concurrent findings reached at lower levels. The learned single Judge in the High Court, however, on the interpretation of section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act came to the conclusion that the section conferred untramelled revisional jurisdiction upon the Board of Revenue to call for the record of any case for its review and make any order which it "thinks fit". Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act for the material purpose reads :‑ (1) The Board of Revenue, may, at any time, on its own motion, or on an application made to it within ninety days of the passing of any order, call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer subordinate to it. (2) . (3) . (4) The Board of Revenue may, in any case called for under subsection (1) tray pass such orders as it thinks it : Provided that no order shall be passed tinder this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer affecting any person without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. On its plain reading, the section confers very wide power of revision of any order made by the subordinate officer, the only condition being that the Board considers the case "fit" for its interference. The only other condition is of a prior notice. In other respects the power is unqualified. Learned counsel submitted that. Board of Revenue has, in a number of cases in the past, interpreted the section in a restricted sense and in which in somewhat similar cases it had declined to interfere. The argument, however, ignores that the learned Member Board of Revenue based himself on the report of the District Remount Officer and the previous reports which were of indifferent character. After hearing the petitioner's learned counsel at some length, in our opinion, view taken by the learned single Judge in the High Court is, if we may so with respect, perfectly right. The matter lay entirely within the discretion of the Revenue Authorities which is subject to the incidence of appeal and revision as the case may be, to the higher authorities in the heirarchy created by the Act. It is hardly a matter for interference either by the High Court or this Court is its special jurisdiction. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.