' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER JUDICIAL-III.--This revision petition has been filed against order dated 28-3-2013 passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, whereby appeal of Bashir Ahmad etc, present petitioners was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent No,2 filed an application to the DCO alleging therein that the petitioners have stolen 5 shisham trees from the land bearing khewat No,191, khatuni No,695, khasra No,56/1, 2/1 situated in Chak No,24/WB, District Vehari, owned by Provincial Government. The Assistant Commissioner, Vehari was directed to conduct inquiry in this behalf who got recorded statements of respondent No,2 and some other persons in the absence of petitioners. However, statements of the petitioners were recorded but no opportunity was given to cross-examine. On 20-3-2012, the A.C. Vehari ordered 'registration of case against the petitioner No,
1. The petitioners filed appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, which was accepted vide order dated 20-3-2012 and fresh inquiry was directed. Thereafter, the DCO directed the General Assistant (Revenue) to conduct fresh inquiry who submitted his report on 1-9-2012 stating that as per contention of the complainant, Bashir Ahmad and Farooq Ahmad, present petitioners stole trees but witnesses of the complainant stated that they did not see them while doing so. Thereafter, on 8-9-2012, the said inquiry officer recommended for registration of case. Consequently, on 8-9-2012, the District Collector ordered registration of case against the petitioners. That order was challenged before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, through appeal, which was dismissed on 28-3-2013. Both the orders dated 8-9-2012 and 28-3-2013 are against the law and facts of the case,, which thus, are liable to be set aside.
Respondent No,2 stated that the petitioners have cut 5 shisham trees, but his witnesses stated that they did not see them while doing so. Afterwards, the inquiry report is also contradictory as he on 1- 9-2012 did not recommend for registration of case while on 8-9-2012, the same inquiry officer recommended for registration of case against the petitioners. The inquiry officer should have recorded statements of Lambardar and patwari. Petitioner No,1 is candidate of Lambardar and is serving in HBL. This allegation has been leveled to blemish his character. Lastly, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. The respondents did not turn up in the court in spite of observation of all the codal formalities for process service including proclamation in the daily newspaper, therefore, they were proceeded, ex parte.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that Hafeez Ullah, the present respondent No,2 submitted an application to DCO, Vehari stating therein that the present petitioners have cut 5 shisham trees from land bearing khewat No,191, khatuni No,695, khasra No,56/1 2/1 situated in Chak No,24/WB, district Vehari owned by Provincial government. The DCO got conducted an inquiry in this behalf from the General Assistant Revenue ordered registration of case against the petitioners on the basis of findings of such enquiry report vide his order dated 8- 9-2012. The petitioners preferred an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 28-3-2013. The operative part of the order reads as under:- "It is evident from the record that State land in possession of the appellants is owned by the Provincial Government and they cut the trees from State land as per report of General Assistant (Revenue), Vehari. The District Collector vide impugned order directed for registration of case against the accused persons who were found guilty on account of cutting of trees from State land in question. The Inquiry Officer afforded the opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses of the complaint and to defend themselves. The appellants should have to face the investigation and to prove themselves innocent. Under these circumstances, I' find no irregularity in the impugned order which is upheld and the appeal having no legal force is hereby dismissed."
6. From perusal of the above, it is quite clear that the petitioners have been facing charge of commission of a criminal act. Of course, the enquiry proceedings were conducted on the order of D.C.O. And order of registration of a criminal case against the present petitioners has also been passed by him. But, yet, this matter, due to allegation of commission of a criminal act is not precisely a matter to be adjudicated upon under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967. The petitioners would have every opportunity to prove their case before the police authorities or the court of competent jurisdiction, as the case may be and that would be appropriate forum for the petitioners to present their case.
7. In the backdrop of the above, the revision petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners may approach the police authorities where the matter may already be pending as a consequence of impugned order for redressal of their grievances. Further, the police authorities may proceed without prejudice to the findings of the inquiry officer which are against the present petitioners.