' This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.5-1980 of Commissioner, Multan by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 26-2-1980 of the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Shujabad leasing out land in Chak No, 388/WB comprising Khasra Nos. 2/9 to 12, 16, 18 to 25 to the respondent for a period of 5 years with effect from Kharif 1978.
2. Brainily, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Shujabad leased out the land dispute to Allah Bakhsh petitioner 04 30-11-1971, by draw of lots, for a period of 5 years. Ghulam Rasool respondent preferred an. Appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan contending that he being in cultivating possession of the land in dispute was better entitled to get it on lease. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) remanded the case on 6-8..1979 to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector for fresh decision according to the possession of the parties. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector heard the case again and found that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari regarding cultivating possession had been tampered with. He, therefore, detailed the Naib- Tehsildar/Revenue Officer, Halqa to hold an on-the-spot-inquiry to find out as to who had been in physical possession of the land. When the Naib-Tehsildar started the inquiry the petitioner offered that he would surrender his claim provided Ghulam Rasool respondent had sworn by the Holy Qur'an that he had been in cultivating possession during Rabi 1980. The respondent accepted the offer and took an oath on the Holy Qur'an affirming that he had continuously remained in cultivating possession since 1977. A report was accordingly made by the Naib-Tehsildar, whereupon the Assistant Commissioner/Collector sanctioned the lease in favour of the respondent for a period of 5 years with effect from K harif 1978, vide the order dated 26-2-1980. The petitioner filed an appeal believe the Commissioner, Multan but the same was dismissed on 26-5-1980 with the following observations : "As the offer of oath was given by the appellant and it was accepted by the respondent who also took an oath on the Holy Qur'an in the Mosque according to the desire of the appellant, the appellant has no locus standi to object in the matter."
' Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders and the relevant record,
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Assistant Commissioner/Collector was required by the remand order dated 6-8-1979 to decide the case himself, but on the contrary he had deputed the &venue Officer, Halqa to make an inquiry and report about possession on the spot ; therefore, his decision which was based on such inquiry report was illegal and unsustainable.
The argument has no force. A Revenue Officer is empowered under section 20(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 to refer any case which he is competent to dispose of under that Act to another Revenue Officer subordinate to him for investigation and report, and decide the case upon such report after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. There was thus nothing illegal about the Assistant Commissioner's calling upon the Revenue Officer, Halqa, who was subordinate to him, to inquire into and report about possession on the spot and basing his decision upon such report.
5. The learned counsel further argued that the Revenue Officer being not a 'Court' any inquiry before him would be of fiscal nature and would not be deemed to be a 'judicial proceeding'; therefore if any party during such inquiry makes an oath on the proposal of the other party, then the party :making such proposal would not be bound by the oath of the opposite party. The argument is without merit and stands categorically repelled by section 27 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which lays down that "every inquiry under this Act shall be deemed to be a 'judicial proceeding' within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Revenue Officer holding an inquiry shall be deemed to be a 'Court' for the purposes of such inquiry." This means that while holding any inquiry under the Land Revenue Act, which by virtue of its applicability to all proceedings under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, also encompasses any inquiry under that Act, the Revenue Officer constitutes a 'Court' and is empowered to receive evidence and B administer oath to any party or witness and, a fortiori, if any during such inquiry offers to be bound by an oath made by the other party, then the oath so made shall, according to section 11 of the Oaths Act (Act X of 1873), be conclusive proof as against the party offering to be bound. In this view of the matter, the petitioner being the offering party was bound by the oath made by the respondent and, in, consequence, the lower Courts were well within their rights to admit such oath as a conclusive proof of the matter as against the petitioner and make it the basis of their decision.
6. In the result this revision petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.