P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)

S. 16‑Mutation Suo motu revision‑Incongruity in orders‑Remand of case for fresh decision‑Proper and legal. Abdul Samad Khan for Petitioners. Qaim Shah for Respondents. An oral sale of land of their entire joint holding in Khata No. 473/1248 to 1431 was carried out by Dayar, Sarfraz and Mst. Ashro in favour of Saifoor Khan, respondent for a consider ation of Rs. 500. Mutation No. 8444 was entered on 23‑7‑1958 but was sanctioned almost 3 years later on 14‑3‑1961 by the Revenue Officer. In the meantime another mutation No. 8636 was entered relating to one field No. 699 which had already been included in the earlier sale, in favour of another person Aman Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. This sale admittedly took place on a later date but it came up for attes tation earlier and the mutation was sanctioned on 21‑9‑1960. Aman Khan went in appeal to the Collector regarding mutation No. 8444 on the ground that it included field No. 699 which had already been sold to him through the later mutation No. 8636. The Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision. A second appeal was preferred by Saifoor Khan to the learned Additional Commissioner who sent for the record of mutation No. 8636 also and presumably in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction remanded both the mutations for a fresh decision after making due enquiries. A revision has now been filed against this order of the Additional Commissioner. The only point that has been taken up before me is that the learned Additional Commissioner was not competent to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in this case. This is not tenable as a simple perusal of section 16 of the Land Revenue Act would bear out. This section seems to envisage the exercise of revisional powers suo motu and not necessarily on the applications of a party. The power really vests in the Commissioner, and contrary to the provisions regarding exercise of appellate juris diction the section does not confer any right on an aggrieved party to invoke revisional jurisdiction. A practice undoubtedly has sprung up that applications for this purpose are made and for the simple reason that unless a party gives information or states some facts before the revising authority, it is not easy for that authority to examine all the records or proceedings before the lower Courts and then proceed to exercise revisional powers in such cases as is considered necessary. It has further been contended that in any case this was not a fit case for the exercise of revisional juris diction. I disagree. The facts narrated above disclose that there has been an obvious incongruity in the orders passed and the anomaly or incongruity in the orders passed can only be remedied if the entire case is considered afresh. In my opinion the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner on both the mutations are fully justified and the petition under consideration before me stands dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.