2016 PLP 1610 (YLR)

NADEEM ASHRAF, SENIOR MEMBER (REVENUE).

The subject Revision Petition under Section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 has been directed against order of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation / Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Camp at Jhelum dated 06.02.2013 whereby appeal of the present respondents was accepted and order of Additional District Collector, Jhelum dated 23.09.2011 was set aside.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application before District. Officer (Revenue)/District Collector, Jhelum for correction of entries in revenue record pertaining to Khasra Nos.606, 850, 798, 799, 848, 840, 188, 1332, 804, 421, 1208, 119, 364 situated in Mauza Gegli Pakhral, Tehsil Sohawa, District Jhelum. District Officer (Revenue), Jhelum forwarded the application to Tehsildar for report under the law. On the report of the Revenue field staff, the District Collector recorded the remarks "As proposed" on 23.9.2011. The respondents challenged the said order dated 23.9.2011 in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue and Consolidation), Rawalpindi which was accepted and the order dated 23.9.2011 was set aside vide impugned order of the Additional Commissioner dated 6.2.2013 with the observations that the order of Additional District Collector was sketchy, the entry of 1967 was not challenged in appeal up to 2011 and review of the same without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties was not in accordance with law. Hence this Revenue Petition against the order dated 6.2.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that report of the revenue field staff was in detail. The error was clear from the face of revenue record and on the report of revenue field staff. The revenue authorities are competent to correct the same under Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 which was rightly ordered by the District Collector. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is against law and facts of the case. The practice of the Revenue Officer is very clear that when any aggrieved person move an application before a competent Revenue Officer, the Revenue Officer marks it to his subordinate officer and after getting report from the subordinate Revenue Officer, pass an order. The order of the Additional District Collector was, therefore, in accordance with law and the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner is liable to be set aside on this score alone.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that longstanding entries of revenue record cannot be altered and interfered with in summary procedure. The order of the Additional District Collector was sketchy and was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the respondents. The Additional District Collector only recorded the remarks "As proposed" on the report of the revenue field staff and entries existing in the revenue record since 1965-65 were allowed to be corrected without any justification. The matter pertains to allotment of land in question under the Jammu and Kashmir Refugees Scheme which was allotted to Mst. Ayesha Bibi in accordance with law. Mst. Ayesha Bibi further alienated this land to Niamat Khan, etc. predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The bona fide purchasers were not impleaded as party at any stage before Additional District Collector. He prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed and impugned order of the Additional Commissioner dated 06.2.2013 may be upheld.

5. Arguments heard and record perused. An office note was put up to Additional District Collector by his reader. Details of the facts were incorporated in the office note by the said official. The Additional District Collector on this office note without any independent application of mind recorded "As proposed". This perfunctory approval granting permission to review the order of the Revenue Officer concerned cannot sustain as even permission to review entails consequences for the parties and initiates a legal process which the parties have to undergo. Although the reviewing authority would, no doubt, be required to hear the parties before passing any order to review or to uphold the existing order in terms of Section 163(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, but, nevertheless the review sanctioning authority has to examine and see whether prima facie the facts agitated warrant initiation of review or fall within the ambit of grounds / parameters to invoke review. This permission to review should precede an independent application of mind rather than relying on an office note. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner rightly set aside the order of the Additional District Collector dated 23-9-2011. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner dated 06.02.2013. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. HBT/25/Rev. Petition dismissed.