P L D 1965 W (PLP)

Inayat Elahi for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 8th of September 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (R) Peshawar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied to the Collector for getting irrigation facilities from Khasra No. 787 on the ground that the existing watercourse in Khasra No. 600 was so situated that he could not irrigate his entire area. Enquiries were made by the revenue as well as the canal authorities. The owners of Khasra No. 787 were stated to be in favour of the request made by the petitioner except one Sultan Ahmad who raised objections but he was not a co‑sharer of the land in dispute. A compensation amounting to Rs. 343 was proposed for the land in question and the case was recommended by the Executive Engineer to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commis sioner approved the proposal on 2‑11‑

61. The petitioner deposited the amount of compensation but the landowners subsequently refused to receive it. Further objections were raised by some of the affected persons and additional enquiries were made. It was ultimately recommended that the Collector's previous order dated 2‑11‑61, should stand. The Collector, however, ordered that the consent of the share‑holders should 'be secured. The case was again sent back to the Executive Engineer. Further enquiries were made and recommendations were again made for according to the request of the petitioner. The Collector however, ordered on 26‑4‑63, that the existing irrigation arrangements need not be disturbed. The petitioner went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner but it was dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order of the Collector dated 2‑11‑61, still stands. There was no appear filed against it and the Collector could not review‑ his previous order. The learned counsel for the respondent did point out that the first order was not legal in the sense that 15 days' notice was not given to the parties' concerned. No appeal or revision has been filed against the previous order and this argument of the learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore, no relevancy. It is not appropriate at this stage to go into the question of the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Collector on 2‑11‑61, because no appeal was filed against that order nor any revision has been preferred. The petitioner has come up in revision against the second order which the Collector had no powers to pass because the law did not give him any power to review his previous orders. In these circumstances, the legal position is quite clear that the previous order stands and the second order is without any legal authority. I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Collector on 26‑4‑63, and by the learned Additional Commissioner, on 4‑9‑

64. The result will be that the previous order passed by the Collector on 2‑11‑61, shall stand. I may, however, make it clear that this order of mine is with out prejudice to the legality or otherwise of the Collector's order dated 2‑11‑61, and it is open to the respondents to take such steps in respect thereof as they are legally competent to do. A. H. Order accordingly.