' This is a revision petition against the order dated 8-12-1975 of the Assistant Commissioner, Larkana confirming the right of Pre-emption of the respondent More, under M. L. R-115, over 0- 50'paisas share in S. No, 571/106 acre of Deh Agani, Taluka Larkana.
2. This case was initially decided by the Mukhtiarkar and Tribunal under the Sind Land Commission (Pre-emption) Rules, 1974, The appeal was preferred under rule 6 of the same Rules before the Assistant Commissioner, Larkana, who maintained the order of the Mukhtiarkar and Tribunal, vide his order impugned here. The present revision petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner Larkana, was passed on to the Board of Revenue for further action in compliance with the directive issued by the Sind Land Commission vide its circular No, SLC/5537-73/3209, dated 4-7-1976, which desired that, on promulgation of Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976, all the pre-emption cases pending before the Mukhtiarkar and Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall be transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection involving interpretation of law. He contended that under sub-rule (5) of para 25 of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976, all such suits as were pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the said amending Act shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Collector concerned. He stressed that the amending Act is, however, silent on the pending matters on appellate and revisional stages. The pending cases on appellate and revisional sides were, therefore, not affected as they had been impliedly saved, as against the original suits which had been expressly transferred to the Collector from the Court of Mukhtiarkar and Tribunal. In the circumstances the learned counsel argued, the transfer of all the pending matters on appellant revisional sides to the Commissioner/the Board of Revenue, respectively, was not in accordance with law and therefore liable to be reversed.
4. The point for determination before me is; whether transfer of the pending appeals and revisions to the Commissioners and the Board of Revenue in compliance with the administrative instructions issued by the Sind Land Commission vide their circular letter No, SLC-5537-73-3209, dated 3-7- 1976 was in keeping with law for the time being in force?
5. The issue was referred to time Sind Land Commission for examination. In response, they merely advised in their letter No SLC-5537/73- DS (LC)-I/5687, dated 27-104979 that a judicial decision in the matter be taken.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the law relating to the issue. I find that : "(i) Sub-paras. (5) to (7),have been added to para 25 of the MLR-115 by the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976, in this respect.
(ii) Sub-para. (5) ibid provides that the pending suits shall stand transferred to the Collector.
(iii) In sub-para. (6) ibid Commissioner has been empowered to decide the appeals filed against the orders passed by the Collector.
(iv) In sub-para. (7) ibid the revisional powers have been vested in the Board of Revenue.
(v) Thus in sub-paras. (5), (6) and (7) ibid the authorities to decide original suits and appeals/revisions arising therefrom are respectively the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. These forums replaced the Mukhtiarkar and Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively, which were constituted under the provisions of Sind Tenancy Act, 1950.
(vi) The said amending Act evidently does not affect the matters on appellate or revisional sides which arise as a result of any order already passed on original suits by the Mukhtiarkar/Tribunal.
(vii) The said amending Act evidently has overriding effect in respect of rule 6 of the Sind Land Commission (Pre-emption) Rules, 1974 which runs as follows:- "The order of the Tribunal shall he subject to appeal and -revision in accordance with the provisions of the Sind Tenancy Act, 1950.
Appeal and revision, according to Sind Tenancy Act, 1950 lay before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively.
7. My attention has been drawn to the provisions of General Clauses Act and various legal decisions on the issue of appeal and its effect on existing rights. The right of appeal and revision is a vested right. It cannot be affected by as amending Act in the absence of express provision to that effect. Obviously, Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 is an amending Act and not a repealing Act. It has, however, the effect of overriding certain provisions of the Sind Land Reforms (Pre- emption) Rules, 1974, as observed in para 6 (vii) above. Para. 3 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR-115) confers this overriding effect. This effect is, no doubt, of consequential nature. The amending Act is thus clearly in the nature of a Legislative scavenger" invested by express provision with the power to override all provisions of law clash with it. It, therefore, hits rule 6 of the Sind Land Reforms (Pre-emption) Rules, 1974.
8. As a general principle it can be safely assumed that whenever an Act overrides any enactment or a provision thereof/thereunder unless a different intention appears the act of over ridding shall not act affect an "legal proceedings or remedy" in respect of any right that has already accrued and has not been otherwise expressly determined. Under the General Clauses Act, as a matter of procedure, the new Act must always be followed in "legal proceedings or remedy" but a right which has accrued under the Act which has been repealed or overridden will remain subject to the qualification that repealing/overriding Act contains no provision to the contrary. Here the expression "Legal proceedings" included pending appeals or revisions. This interpretation in the absence of the legislative provision to the contrary will be in accordance with the principles of equity and good conscience analogous to the principles of the General Clauses Act.
' Reliance in this respect is placed on :- (i) PLD 1963 Kar. 996;
(fi) PLD 1959 Kar. 94;
(iii) 1973 PLC 175;
(iv) 1951 Pb. 52, 56.
9. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that transfer of all the matters pending before the Assistant Commissioners on appellate side and the Deputy Commissioners on revisional side arising out of appeal/revisions against the order of Mukhtiarkar/Tribunal on original suits, is not in accordance with law, being in violation of the existing rights and, therefore, not maintainable. The matter is therefore, decided accordingly.
10. In the circumstances the present revision petition against the order dated 8-12-1975 of the Assistant Commissioner, Larkana passed on appellate side, now transferred to the Board of Revenue from the pending revisional file of the Deputy Commissioner, Larkana, in compliance with the instructions of the Sind Land Commission vide their circular dated 4-7-1976 cannot be heard in the Board of Revenue. It is, therefore, again returned to the Deputy Commissioner, Larkana for hearing and decision on merits.
11. The Secretary, Sind Land Commission, should also be informed.