' This is a revision petition against the order dated 24-12-1978 of Additional Commissioner, Lahore by which he refused permission to the District Collector, Sheikhupura to review the order of his predecessor dated 25-7-1975 allotting the land in dispute to the respondent.
2. Briefly, on 23-5-1959 the respondent was allotted State land comprising 124 acres in Chak No, 27/UCC under the Grow More Food Scheme. Subsequently, this allotment came under the scrutiny of Governor's Inspection Team who raised the following objections against it, namely :
(a) that the land in dispute was situated within the prohibited belt of Muridke Town Committee and, therefore, not available for allotment under Grow More Food Scheme
(b) that a sum of Rs, 937.50 was outstanding against the respondent on account of rent ;
(c) that the respondent was a leather merchant and not a cultivator, hence ineligible to get the state agricultural land ; and
(d) that the respondent's sons and grandsons had also obtained multiple allotments under the same Scheme.
3. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura, after hearing the respondent, cancelled his allotment, vide order dated 26-4-1968. The respondent went up in appeal against this order on which the case was remanded for fresh decision. He then filed a writ petition but it was dismissed on 31-8-1970. In the meantime the prohibited belt of Muridke Town Committee was reduced from five to two miles and as a result the land in dispute fell outside it and became available for allotment. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector thereupon restored the allotment of the respondent, vide his order dated 25-7-1975. Subsequently, however, on the objections raised by the Audit Officer, Board of Revenue against this allotment, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the respondent and after hearing his objections made a reference to the Commissioner vide order dated 29-6-1978 seeking his permission to review the order of his predecessor dated 25-7-1975. The respondent challenged this order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, who accepted the same and refused the requisite sanction for review, vide his order dated 24-12-1978. Fazal Muhammad petitioner who has been contesting this case in the lower Courts has preferred a revision against this order.
4. I have heard the arguments on both sides and have also perused the impugned order and the relevant record. It appears from the record that the Collector made a reference vide his order dated 29-6-1978 for obtaining sanction of the Commissioner for the review of the order passed by his predecessor on 25-7-1975 and the matter was still pending consideration of the Commissioner on executive side when the Additional Commissioner entertained the appeal of the respondent and decided it finally by refusing the requisite sanction, vide order dated 24-12-1978. In so doing the Additional Commissioner had completely ignored the previous rulings of the Board of Revenue reported as 3 P R 1912 (Rev.) 29 ; 6 P R 1912 and PLD 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458, wherein it has been consistently laid down that a sanction to review given under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act is not an 'order' as defined in section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, not appealable, though there is an appeal from the order passed in review unless it confirms the previous order. In the t case also the so-called order of the Collector dated 29-6-1978 being only reference for obtaining the prior sanction of the Commissioner for the review of the order of his predecessor, and not a formal expression of any decision taken by him in review, it could not be termed as an 'order' within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure and was, therefore, not subject to appeal. Thus the Additional Commissioner had no right to entertain an appeal against a reference pending before the Commissioner and decide it finally unless the Commissioner himself had transferred it to him for disposal. The Additional Commissioner, no doubt, has all the powers of the Commissioner to dispose of any of his functions under section 9 of the Land Revenue Act, but these powers are always to be exercised subject to the general supervision and control of the Commissioner of the division. From this it follows that the Additional Commissioner will not exercise his jurisdiction in those matters which according to the distribution of work between him and the Commissioner have not been specifically entrusted to him or which may be pending on the file of the Commissioner. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 24-12-1978 passed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner was without lawful authority and therefore void and of no effect. The reference of the Collector dated 29-6-1978 will thus be deemed to be still pending disposal.
5. Consequently, I would allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the Commissioner, Lahore for disposal, on merits, of the reference dated 29-6-1978 made by the District Collector, Sheikhupura.