P L D (Rev (PLP)

I. U. KHAN, F. C.‑This is an appeal originally instituted before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, but now forwarded by him with the recommendation that it should be treated as a revision and the order of Collector, Mianwali as well as the Assistant Collector in this case, should be quashed. The facts of the case are that Sadullah Khan appellant applied for the partition of the land in dispute. Dilas Khan respondent did not appear before the Assistant Collector in spite of the fact that a notice was published in the news paper. Ex parte proceedings were, therefore, ordered against him on 18th November 1952. On 25th November 7,952, he put in an application for setting aside the ex parte proceed ings. This application was still pending when the mode of partition was sanctioned on 2nd December 1952. Dilas Khan's application was finally rejected on 4th December, 1952. Dilas Khan went in appeal before the Collector against the Assistant Collector's order dated 4th December 1952. Before the Collector, Dilas Khan and Sadullah Khan came to an agreement to the effect that Dilas Khan should be allowed to retain one kanal of land on which he had built his Kotha and Haveli. Although the appeal was for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the Collector ordered the amendment of the mode of partition so as to allow Dilas Khan to retain one kanal of land mentioned above. A second appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi, who found that the order of the Collector was defective in so far as he could not order the amendment of the mode of partition in an appeal which had been preferred before him for setting aside ex parte proceedings specially when other parties had not agreed to the amendment of the mode of partition. The Commissioner, has therefore, recommended that, as the order of the Collector' contained irregularities and the order of the Assistant Collector created a hardship, both these orders should be quashed, and the Assistant Collector should be directed to review his previous order, by which the mode of partition, had been, sanctioned. Parties were summoned. Only Dilas Khan appeared who was heard. Ex parte proceedings were ordered against others. Dilas Khan was very anxious to retain the one kanal of land on which he had built his Haveli as well as Kotha. This request is reasonable, and has, in fact, been recommended by the, Commissioner. I, however, find that the procedure sug gested by the Commissioner will not meet the ends of justice. He has suggested that the Assistant Collector be directed to review his order in a particular manner. This is not possible. I have, therefore, treated this appeal as a revision a", in the peculiar circumstances of the case, have accepted it with the direction that the order of the Collector will be quashed and the order of the Assistant Collector will be amended to the extent that Dilas Khan and his brother will be allowed to retain one kanal of land which had been pur chased by them and on which they had built the Haveli and Kotha. Parties to be informed. A. H. Order accordingly