2001 PLP 499 (CLC)

"

163. Review.‑‑‑ (1) A Commissioner, Collector or an Assistant Collector, may at any time, on his own motion, review any order passed by himself or any of his predecessors‑in‑office, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm the same. (2) Any person considering himself aggrieved by an order passed by a Commissioner, Collector or an Assistant Collector, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, Which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the order passed against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Commissioner, Collector or Assistant Collector, as the case may be, and such officer may modify, reverse or confirm any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessor‑in‑office: Provided that‑‑‑ (a) an order passed by his predecessor‑in‑office shall not be reviewed under subsection (1) or subsection (2) by the‑‑ (i) Commissioner, without first obtaining the sanction of the Board of Revenue; (ii) Collector, without first obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner. and no order shall be reviewed by any other Revenue Officer, without first obtaining the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject; ?????? ? (b) an application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order, or unless the applicant satisfies the Revenue Officer that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period; (c) an order shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice, has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of the order: ??????????? (d) an order against which an appeal has been preferred shall not be reviewed. (3) For the purpose of this section, the Collector shall deemed to be successor‑in‑office of any Revenue Officer of a lower class who has left the district or has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer, and to whom there is no successor‑in‑office. (4) An appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order."

6. It is thus clear from the reading of this section that Revenue Officers of various tiers can review their respective orders or orders of their predecessors 'subject to fulfillment of certain .conditions either suo motu or on an application made by an aggrieved person. The procedure laid down in this section requires Revenue Officer to obtain permission of his immediate next superior officer when he is satisfied that an order of his predecessor needs review. A distinction is, therefore, , automatically made between reviewing authority and sanctioning authority. In subsection (2) it is provided that an aggrieved person may apply for review of the order of Commissioner, Collector or Assistant Collector as the case may be. It lays down that application for review of an order may be made to the concerned Revenue Officer. The word "may" cannot be construed to mean that the aggrieved person has the choice to file an application to any of the three classes of Revenue Officers. But there is no recital in the entire section to say that if an application for review is submitted to senior officer against an order of a subordinate officer, it will be incompetent and no proceeding on that application can be undertaken. District Collector is custodian of the Record of Rights in the District. He has been empowered under Land Revenue Act, Land Administration Manual, Land Records Manual and the Instructions of the Board of Revenue, etc. to order for correction of entries of Revenue Record and is duty bound to ensure that record is updated and maintained correctly. District Collector is the authority to sanction or accord permission for review of an order passed by predecessor of a subordinate Revenue, a Officer. In Chapter N Procedure of Revenue Officers subsection (3) of section 20 it is laid down:‑‑ Subject to the rules made under this section, a Revenue Officer may refer any case which is empowered to dispose of under this Act to another Revenue Officer subordinate to him for investigation and report, and may decide the case upon such report, after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard." This power of the senior Revenue Officer and especially District Collector also finds mention in para. 252 of Land Administration Manual. 7: If an application pointing out defective entries of Revenue Record is submitted to District Collector, who is custodian of the Revenue Record of the District and is responsible for its correct maintenance and such application is marked to the subordinate Revenue Officer for investigation and report, the District Collector cannot be viewed to have transgressed his power. When a report from the subordinate Revenue Officer who is competent to review any order passed by his predecessor with the permission of his superior officer is received by District Collector on which he formulates the view that Revenue Record is not correctly maintained and certain order of a subordinate Revenue Officer requires review and accords permission for review of such an order, he merely facilitates the fulfilment of conditionality imposed on such Revenue Officer under clause (ii), subsection (2) of section

163. Sanction to review under proviso to section 163(2)(a)(ii) was held not an order as defined in section 104 of C.P.C. It is merely a permission accorded to a subordinate Revenue Officer to subject the order of his predecessor to judicious scrutiny in the presence of the concerned parties. The concerned Revenue Officer, who has been allowed to review the order is not bound, after hearing the parties, to necessarily modify or reverse the order. Previous order could be confirmed. This procedure in no way offends the existing rules or principles of natural justice or equity. But certainly promotes the requirement of law that the Revenue Record be maintained to correctly reflect the rights of right‑holders of the estate. It is not uncommon to witness that the irregularities committed by subordinate Revenue functionaries in flagrant disregard of laws and rules result in causing injustices to right‑holders and especially to State. If it is left only to the Revenue Officer himself to initiate the case for review of an order of his predecessor or a construction is placed on clause (ii) of subsection (2) of section 163 that an application submitted to Senior Revenue Officer cannot proceed, it will be tantamount to closing an avenue which is available to the aggrieved persons as well as to the State to check the veracity of the entries of the Revenue Record. This certainly will cause unnecessary hardship to the aggrieved person in whose perception District Collector is an agent of the State to cause redressal of their grievances. The practice that except D.C./Collector no other Revenue Officer including the Board of Revenue entertain the applications for review of an order of a subordinate officer cannot be made a ground to infer that an application submitted to D.C./Collector praying for grant of sanction to a Revenue Officer for review of an order passed by his predecessor‑in‑office is illegal and not acceptable.

8. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to infer that the application submitted for seeking permission of D.C./Collector to allow Revenue Officer concerned to review his or his predecessor's order is not bad in law.

9. This Court does not have the benefit of the reply of the Border Area Committee regarding allotment made to Muhammad Akram in response to the query made to it by D.C./Collector. Therefore, the statement made in para.4 of the impugned order of Additional Commissioner that "District Collector, Sheikhupura also approached the Border Area Allotment Committee. The report was received that no such allotment was ever made in favour of respondent No.3 Muhammad Akram" has to be relied upon. Since no allotment was made to Muhammad Akram, therefore, the proposition of the petitioners that at para. 2(vii) that if D.C./Collector was of the view that the allotment and subsequent mutations were result of forgery, he should have referred the matter to Border Area Committee for verification, lacks cogency. As regards proposition at paras. 2(v) and (vi), that the D.C./Collector lacked jurisdiction to review or cancel allotments made by Border Area Committee, recital of the aforesaid paras would reveal that no jurisdictional aspect is involved since D.C./Collector did not cancel the allotment but found after receipt of report from Border Area Committee that no allotment was ever made to Muhammad Akram.

10. Long‑standing entries of Revenue Record which have no legal foundation and are result of fraud and forgery can be changed under the order of D.C./Collector as contained in the instructions of the Board of Revenue circulated vide No.583‑85/768‑LRII, dated 7‑5‑1985. This is in respect of proposition at para.2(v). '

11. The original allotee during inquiry conducted by E.A.C.(R), was not associated neither his successors‑in‑interest were heard which has been taken exception to by the learned counsel for the petitioners (para.2(iv)). E.A.C.(R) conducted an enquiry on a complaint submitted by Khalid Pervez son of Naimet Ali. This enquiry was conducted to ascertain whether there was any force in the contention of the complainant. E.A.C.(R) never passed any order. It was merely a proposal which he submitted to D.C./Collector. The petitioners were therefore, unnecessary party to the probe conducted by E.A.C.(R). In any case all the petitioners were heard by Additional Commissioner and as such their view‑point was considered and finding given thereon.

12. For the aforesaid, it is unnecessary to comment on clauses (ii) and (iii) of para.2.

13. The entries of Jamabandi unsupported by Pert Sarkar of Mutation No.52 and not founded on any valid instrument, Border Area Committee having reported to D.C./Collector that no allotment was made to Muhammad Akram in respect of land measuring 194 Kanals, 19 Marlas, partly reserved for common purposes of the dewellers of the Mauza and part of it was in the occupation of a Government Department cannot be allowed to subsist in the Revenue Record. This land certainly could not be reserved for allotment under Border Area Scheme. Since the very foundation of the entries of Jamabandi was nullity in the eyes of law, therefore, any superstructure built thereon must fall. D.C./Collector, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that Revenue Record required to be corrected through "Sehat Intiqal". Additional Commissioner had sound ground upholding this view to which no exception can be taken. In this view of the matter, there is no legal force in the revision petitions which are dismissed. H.B.T./28/Rev.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.