2016 PLP 2026 (YLR)

NADEEM ASHRAF, SENIOR MEMBER (REVENUE).

The titled Revision Petitions under Section 164 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 have been directed against order dated 25.06.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, whereby he dismissed the appeal of petitioners and upheld the order of Additional District Collector, Rawalpindi dated 21.12.2011 vide which he granted permission to review mutation No.71 dated 21.02.1959 and No.3939 dated 08.05.2008 of village Tulsa Hardo, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi under Section 163 2(a)(ii) of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and directed the revenue field staff to take further necessary action under section 163(2)(c) of the Act ibid.

2. Facts of the case have already been narrated in the impugned order dated 25.06.2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and there is no need to dilate upon the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R. No.2177/2013 has argued that the respondent Gulzar Khan submitted an application before Additional District Collector, Rawalpindi for grant of permission for review and cancellation of mutation No.71 dated 21.02.1959 and mutation No.3939 dated 08.5.2008. The Additional District Collector, Rawalpindi relying upon the report of the revenue field staff and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner accorded sanction for review of the mutations vide order dated 21.12.2011. The said order was assailed by virtue of appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide impugned order dated 25.06.2013. The learned counsel contended that according to section 141(v)(b) of the Land Revenue Act 1967, if the revenue officer proceeds to determine question of title, the procedure of civil suit is to be followed. The revenue officer may correct arithmetical or clerical mistake. In case of allegation of fraudulent entry, the Revenue Officer is not competent for correction of the same. The respondent No.1 in fact sought correction of longstanding entries, besides review of mutations but the lower forums while passing the impugned orders did not consider this aspect of the matter. The application of the respondent was hopelessly time barred. During pendency of the civil suit, the ADC committed illegality by passing the order dated 21.12.2011. The impugned orders were passed without conducting proper inquiry as required under Sections 42(6) to (11), 43 and 163(2) and clause (c) of Section 163(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The sale mutation of Atta Muhammad was never discussed or challenged throughout the proceedings, which is a basic document. Moreover, a co-sharer cannot sell in excess of his share in a Khewat. It was prayed that the instant revision petition may be accepted and the impugned orders may be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in R.O.R. No.509/2014 endorsed the contention of Tanveer Iqbal Khan Advocate, counsel for the petitioners in R.O.R. No.2177/2013 and prayed that the instant revision petition may be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that according to Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 2007-2008, the respondent was a co-sharer in Khewat No.161/222. He never alienated his share of ownership in favour of anybody. Ch. Allah Ditta (deceased) transferred the share of the respondent Ch. Gulzar along with his own share in favour of his sons in excess of his due share/ ownership. The respondent moved an application for review of mutation in question through "Sehat Intikal" before the ADC, who after examining the revenue record vide order dated 21.12.2011 granted permission for review of mutations in question by following the law and procedure laid down under section 163(2) (a) (ii) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The permission for review of mutations was not an appealable order. In review proceedings, the Revenue Officer is required to afford opportunity of hearing to both the parties and then pass a speaking order. Wrong entries into the column of cultivation of revenue record do no create title in favour of a person who is mentioned therein. As and when the wrong entry(s) came into the knowledge of the District Revenue functionaries, they are competent to rectify the same and keep the record update under Section 45 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. Finally, it was prayed that the concurrent findings of both the lower courts may be upheld and the instant revision petitions may be rejected.

6. I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of the case. It is evident from record that Lal son of Matta and Gulzar son of Alaf Din were joint owners in equal share in Khewat No.123/224, Khasra Nos.636, 637 and 638, measuring 8 Kanals 8 Marlas (4 Kanals 4 Marlas each), Mauza Tulsa Hardo. Lal son of Matta sold the entire land measuring 8 Kanals 8 Marlas in favour of Atta Muhammad son of Qadir Bakhsh in Khana Kasht which was in excess of his entitlement. The case for its determination rests basically on the point whether District Collector on an application made to him by the respondent No.1 was competent to allow review of mutations Nos.71 dated 21.02.1959 and 3939 dated 08.05.2008 of village Tulsa Hardo, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, provides as under:--

163. Review.

(1) A Commis-sioner, 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 for 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 predecessors-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 purposes of this section, the Collector shall be 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.

7. 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 Officers 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. District Collector is custodian of the Record of Rights in the District. He has been empowered under the Punjab 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 Officer. In Chapter IV 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 he 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."

8. This power of the Senior Revenue Officer and especially District Collector also finds mention in para 252 of the Land Administration Manual. The Additional Commissioner has rightly held in the impugned order dated 25.6.2013 that the permission was only granted to review which meant that the revenue officer below was authorized to have a second look at the record in the presence of the parties. If on an application pointing out defective entries in revenue record or some irregularities or illegalities in any order, District Collector after due verification formulates the view that revenue record was not correctly maintained and that certain order of a subordinate revenue officer required review, and he accords permission for review of the said order then he merely facilitates the fulfillment of conditionality imposed on said revenue officer under section 163(2)(ii) of Land Revenue Act, 1967. Sanction to review under Section 163 is just a permission accorded to a subordinate Revenue Officer to put the order of his predecessor to judicious scrutiny in presence of concerned parties. Concerned revenue officer who is allowed to review the order is not bound to necessarily modify or reverse the previous order but can also confirm the same after affording the opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Subsequent to permission for review, said Revenue Officer is under legal obligation to pass an order in the prescribed manner. In view of the foregoing, I find no legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders of the Additional District Collector dated 21.12.2012 and of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) dated 25.6.2013. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed and the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Additional District Collector and the order dated 25.6.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) are upheld. HBT/24/Rev. Petition dismissed.