P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Appointment‑New point of fact cannot be raised in revision. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)

S. 16‑Revision competent, when appeal not filed‑Time‑barred appeal entertained and accepted by Commissioner‑Order treated as passed in revision. Mubarik Ahmad for Mir Muhammad Bakhsh for Petitioner. This case relates to the Lambardari of village Takhat Hazara, District Sargodha. The last Lambardar Muhammad Yusuf gifted away his property to his grandson. It appears that his son had pre‑deceased him and under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act as it then stood before its recent amendment, the grandson would not have been entitled to any inheritance. Muhammad Yusuf having gifted away his entire property, the Collector proceeded to dismiss him and appointed Wazir Ahmad the present appellant instead amongst other candidates the respondent Mukhtar Ahmad who is the grandson of the dismissed Lambardar also applied but he was ignored by the Collector on the ground that he was a raw youth and would not be able to perform the duties of Lambardar. Further like his grandfather he might dispose of his property. The learned Commissioner interfered and set aside the order passed by the Collector. He held that the post was hereditary qua Mukhtar Ahmad who was entitled to succeed his grandfather. He also considered it an incorrect argument that the entire property will be disposed of by Mukhtar Ahmad in the same manner as his grandfather had done. The reason why the grandfather gifted away all his property to his grandson has been mentioned by me above and it is not that he squandered away his inheritance. A second appeal has now been filed against the order of the Commissioner. The points that have been taken up in this appeal are the same as had been urged before the Collector on behalf of Wazir Ahmad. It has also been said that Mukhtar Ahmad is not the grandson of the Lambardar, but this question of fact had now (sic) here been raised throughout the proceedings. It is also urged' that the appeal before the learned Commissioner was time‑barred. This seems to be correct but the learned Commissioner also exercise power of revision under section 16 of the Land Revenue Act. It has been held in numerous cases that in the case of an appealable order under the Land Revenue Act if no appeal is preferred a revision is competent. The original order was obviously bad in law and in my opinion it was a fit case for exercising revisional jurisdiction even if no appeal had been filed as otherwise it would have led to a mis‑application of the law. Thus the decision arrived at by the learned Commissioner was correct. I would treat his order as passed in revision and the present appeal also as such, and for the reasons given above dismiss it. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.