An appeal was filed by respondent No. 1 against the order dated 2t-6-1973 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Grade If, Sialkot, refusing to sanction a mutation. The case remained .Pending in the Court of respondent No. 3 (Extra Assistant Settlement Officer with powers of Collector, Sialkot) for a long time. On 14-6-1975 when the case was fixed for hearing of arguments, respondents, Mst.
Sarwar Jahan, etc. 'tried to influence the learned Collector to decide the appeal in their favour. In these circumstances, the E. A. S. O./Collector referred this appeal along With another connected appeal to the Settlement Officer/Collector, Sialkot either for decision by himself or for transfer to some other Court of 'competent jurisdiction, i. e. Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, or Additional Deputy Commissioner (Con--solidation). Sialkot, both of whom were also exercising the powers of Collector: The appeal was forwarded for the Collector for this purpose, because respondent No. 3 was of the opinion that he was subject to his control.
2. Two applications were submitted before the said learned Settlement Officer on 3-9-1975 by the petitioner. The first application was -to the effect that as the appeal of Mst. Sarwar Jahan, respondent No. 1 was barred by limitation, it was liable to be rejected on that short ground, while the second application was to the effect that as the E. A. S. O./Collector and the Settlement Officer /Collector were both exercising the powers of the Collector, the order passed by the Extra Assistant Settlement Officer/Collector, transfer--ring the case to the Settlement Officer/Collector was without lawful authority acid of no legal effect and that the case should be sent back to the E. A. S. O./ Collector for disposal in accordance with law. As no order was passed on either of the aforementioned -two applications, the, petitioner moved this Court by this writ petition.
3. The main question is whether the E. A. S. O./Collector was justified in forwarding the appeal to the Collector for disposal of the case. In this connection reliance has been placed by the respondents on sub-clauses (2) and (3) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The said provisions of law are as follows :-.
(2) The powers exercisable by the Board 'of Revenue under subsection (1) may, by like order and in like manner, be exercised by a -Commissioner or Collector in respect of any business cognizable by, or any case pending before, other Revenue Officers under their respective control.
(3) Where a c is withdrawn by the Board of Revenue under sub--section (1), ~ :Board may dispose of it itself, or, by written order, refer it for disposal to any Revenue Officer and where a case is withdrawn by a Commissioner or Collector under subsection (2), the Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, may dispose of it himself, or by like order, refer it to any other Revenue Officer under his control.
(4) ---------------------------------------..
Reliance is placed on the latter part of subsection (3) wherein it is, inter alia, laid down that the Collector may dispose of the case withdrawn by him either himself or refer it to any other Revenue Officer under his control.
4. In order to establish that the E. A. S. O. Is under the control of the Collector, reliance has been placed on Notification No. 640-75-145-S-11, dated 14th March, 1975, which runs as under :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (i) of section 1.6 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and by subsections (1) and (2) of section 105 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to confer and hereby confers upon Syed M. A. Iqbal, Settlement Officer, Sialkot District, all the powers of Collector under the said Act, such powers to be exercised by him within the local limits of the Sialkot district with effect from 27-2-1974. The Governor of the Punjab further directs that in exercise of these powers Syed M. A. Lqbal, shall not be subject to the control of Collector."
The above notification is of no avail, inasmuch as it does not lay down that the EA. S. Os. Are subject to the Control of the Settlement Officer, but merely states that he will not be subject to the control of the Collector. Furthermore section 13 of the Land Revenue Act, deals with the question of administrative control and subsection (4) thereof provides as follows :- ---13---(1)---------------.
(2)---------------------------------..
(3)------------------------------..
(4) Subject as aforesaid and to the control of the Commissioner, a Collector shall control -all other Revenue Officers in his District."
The word "other" clearly denotes officers other than Collectors. It, 1 therefore, follows that in. So far as the control on the judicial side as concerned, all Collectors are controlled by the Commissioner.
5. No, doubt, . The Settlement Officer as the senior Collector could allocate and distribute the work, but in a problem similar to the one which has arisen in this case, namely, that the Collector who has been assigned the case is unable to deal with it; arose orders for its transfer could be passed only by the Commissioner and not by another Collector.
6. On the view I have taken the submission of the petitioner that the order of the E. A. S.10./Collector, dated 14-6-1975 was not correct, is well--founded. I would, therefore, direct that the application submitted by the petitioner on 3-9-1975, to the effect that the E. A. S. O./Collector could not have transferred the case suo motu to the Settlement Officer for disposal or for assignment to some other Collector, should be attended to in the first instance. If the E. A. S. O., Sialkot continues to be the same officer who made the reference, then the Collector should make a further reference to the Commissioner for orders as to which of the Collectors in the District should be entrusted with the case for, disposal, otherwise the case may be sent back to the E. A. S. O./Collector who has taken the place of the previous officer, as he was not justified in transferring the case of his own accord to the Settlement Officer.
7. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds, but as an intricate question was involved, the parties are left to bear their own costs.