' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--This revision petition has been filed against order dated 1-2-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, whereby revision petition of the present petitioners was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that miscellaneous application for rectification of long standing entries in the revenue record was not competent and learned District Officer (Revenue) was not empowered to take cognizance of the same. Learned District Officer (Revenue) illegally allowed the review of mutations, which were based upon the registered sale deeds. Only the civil court was empowered to adjudicate upon such cases. According to section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, learned District Officer (Revenue) is not vested with the power to review or direct the A.C. To review his order. The application of the respondents was based on mala fide reasons, therefore, it was not maintainable. Moreover, the said application was time-barred. The limitation for review of an order is defined 90 days under the law. The respondent has no right upon the land in possession of the petitioner. The revenue courts lack jurisdiction in such cases and proper remedy available to the respondent was in the civil court. The petitioners are bona fide purchasers of 12-kanals of land. The order dated 16-6-2009 is the result of wrong report of patwari which clearly shows mala fide on the part of revenue field staff. The report of revenue field staff is against the ground reality. While concluding the arguments it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sale-deeds Nos.4462, dated 22-2-1977, 2570, dated 24-2-1977, 2400, dated 21-2-1977 and 2514, dated 23-2-1977 were not implemented in the revenue record in the relevant khata from which the land in question was sold. The revenue field staff pointed out this mistake committed by them. Therefore, on coming to know about the said mistake, a report was put up to learned District Officer (Revenue) by the revenue field staff for correction of the wrong entries by granting permission to correct the same. Learned District Officer (Revenue) after hearing contention of the parties and consultation of record granted necessary permission vide order dated 16-5-2009. That order was upheld by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). It is a well settled principle of law that no one should be deprived of his legal and lawful right. The instant revision petition has been filed against the concurrent speaking orders. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the revenue field staff submitted a report mentioning therein that sale-deeds Nos.4462, dated 22-2-1977, 2570, dated 24-2-1977, 2400, dated 21-2-1977 and 2514, dated 23-2-1977 were not implemented in the A revenue record according to the khewats in which land was sold. Learned District Officer (Revenue) after perusing the record and hearing the contention of petitioners granted necessary permission vide order dated 16-5-2009 for correction of revenue record after reviewing mutations Nos.42321 42322, 42324 and 44427 of muaza Taraf Juma Khalsa, Tehsil City Multan. The last para of the order is reproduced as follows:--- "I have heard the counsel for the respondents and perused the report submitted by the revenue field staff. Since the field staff has reported about the wrong implementation of the sale deeds referred to above because khewats number were recorded incorrectly. Therefore, I in exercise of powers under section 163 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 grant permission for review of mutations Nos.42321, 42322, 42323 and 44427 of Mouza Taraf Juma Khalsa, Tehsil City Multan. The Revenue Officer concerned is directed to proceed further as per law.
' It is negligence on the part of Revenue Officer, Kanongo and Patwari concerned of Mouza Taraf Juma Khalsa, Tehsil City Multan, as to why they did not examine the record carefully. A copy of this order is sent to the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, to initiate departmental proceedings against the Officer/Officials jointly for this negligence/ misdoings".
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioners filed revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 1-2-2012. The operative of that order reads as under:--- "I have heard the parties and perused the record. The record shows that certain sale deeds were implemented in the revenue record against the irrelevant khewats instead of correct khewats. The revenue field staff through its report pointed out that mistake in the revenue record and solicited permission for its correction. The District Officer (Revenue) Multan was empowered to correct the revenue record and has also vested within the powers to grant permission to review the mutations under section 163, Land Revenue Act, 1967. The impugned order has been passed strictly according to law. The counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality/irregularity in the impugned order.
' In view of aforementioned reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and same is rejected against the Officer/ Officials jointly for this negligence/misdoings."
8. The issue involved is whether learned District Collector is competent to grant permission to review the order of a Revenue Officer or not section 163 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, is relevant into the issue, which reads as under:--- ' Review.--- (1) An Executive District Officer (Revenue) Collector or an Assistant Collector, may at any time, on his own motion, review any order passed by himself or any of his predecessor-in- office, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm the same.
8. The bare perusal shows that learned District Collector is empowered to review an order passed by himself. He cannot even review the order of his predecessor-in-office on his own. Proviso 163 (2)a(ii) is relevant, which reads as under:- ' Collector, without first obtaining the sanction of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), 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."
9. This issue has further been clarified in 1999 CLC 990 which reads as under:--- "S.163. Deputy Commissioner/District Collector can review his own order or order by his predecessor. This review power u/s. 163 does not empower Deputy Commissioner/District Collector to review mutation sanctioned by a Revenue Officer as sanction of mutation is appealable before Assistant Commissioner/ Collector."
10. From the above, it becomes crystal clear that learned District Collector] was not competent to grant permission to review mutations Nos.42321, 42322, 42323 dated 30-11-2002 and mutation No,44427, dated 8-4-2003 sanctioned by Revenue Officer. As the order of sanction of mutations was an appealable order, party had the choice to avail the remedy as provided in the law instead of seeking permission to review of order of revenue officer from District Collector.
11. Hence, the revision petition is accepted and impugned order dated 1-2-2012, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan and order dated 16-5-2009, passed by learned District Officer (Revenue), Multan, are set aside.
12. The judgment in this case was reserved on 19-2-2015 and it is being announced today i,e, 16-3- 2015.