P L D 1959 W (PLP)

O. XXVI, r. 10‑Court may direct further enquiry if it is dissatisfied with proceedings oJ' Commissioner. Said Hassan Jafri for Petitioner. These are three connected revision petitions Nos. 307, 308 and 309 of 1956‑57, against the order of the Additional Commis sioner (Revenue) Peshawar and D. I. Khan Divisions, dated 13‑4‑57, by which he upheld the order of the Additional Revenue E. A. C. Mardan (Assistant Collector First Grade) dated 15‑12‑56, whereby in a rent suit between the parties the official appointed previously as a ,Commissioner was changed and a new Commis sioner was appointed to assess the improvements in. the land in question. I have heard Mr. Said Hassan Jafri, Advocate for the petitioner. In this case the Additional Commissioner has written an illuminating order setting forth the facts of the case. The respondent had brought a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Mardan for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of some land situated in village Jamra. The petitioner‑defendant resisted the case and in case of ejectment claimed compensation for improvements. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade appointed Pir Syed Akbar Shah, A. l). M. Mardan for investigation and assessment of compensation for improvement before this officer could submit his official report he was transfer red to Peshawar and later he sent an incomplete port from Peshawar on 26‑10‑

56. After hearing the parties the Assistant Collector 1st Grade appointed Tahsildar Mardan as Commission for assessing compensation for improvements. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dismissed the revision petition filed before him. It has been stated before me that the new Commis sioner was appointed without hearing the petitioner‑defendant. The order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 15‑12‑56, shows that the petitioner was present with his counsel on that date and according to the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, who has perused the record, the petitioner's objections were also heard. Since the A. D. M. had been transferred from Mardan, it would have caused avoidable delay if the course adopted by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was not followed The land lies within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar Mardan and it is obvious that he should be able to submit his report without delay or difficulty. According to Order XXVI, rule 10 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code if the Court is for any reason, dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner it may direct further enquiry to be made as it thinks fit. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade was, in the circumstances, justified in passing the order appointing the Tahsildar as Commission. I see no good grounds for interference‑and reject the petitions in limine. The application for staying proceedings before the Assistant Collector stands rejected. K. M. A. Application rejected.