' This is a revision petition purporting to be against the orders contained in letter No, 14/36/69-Rev., dated 25th November, 1969 from the Assistant Commissioner (Development), Is arachi addressed to the petitioner whereby he was advised to seek remedy through civil Court regarding his title over S. Nos. 241, 242, 277. 278 and 281 of Deh Sharfoo, Tappa Landhi, Taluka and District Karachi.
2. The facts of the case are that according to mutation entry No, 283/289, dated 25-3-1958, the disputed S. Nos. Stand in the name of Seth Rajib Ali and others but the petitioner claims that there has been fraudulent entries in the record and that the S. Nos. Actually belonged to him. The petitioner had agitated this question upto the level of Chief Commissioner, Karachi and his appeal was rejected by the Chief Commissioner vide his order, dated 8-10-1956. In 1969 he again agitated this issue before the Minister of Agriculture and Works, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad who referred the case to the Commissioner, Karachi. The Commissioner after calling for report from the Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioner vide the letter, dated 25- :1-1969 from Assistant to Commissioner (Dev.), Karachi to seek remedy on civil Court as his case was old as 1930 and his appeal had also once been rejected by the former Chief Commissioner in 1956, and old titles are to be determined by the civil Court vide the Standing Order No, 17.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted the points in writing about the admissibility of the petition which are reproduced below.
(i) Distinction between Judicial/Executive Ordem-Onthis point reference is kindly invited to PLD 1958 Pesh. 157 relevant rule quoted at (B), p.
1969. In view of this rule, the order of the learned Commissioner now in dispute before this Board is an administrative order rather than Judicial one. Hence remanding of the case will meet ends of Justice.
(ii) Chief Commissioner's Order, dated 8th October, 1956.-This order is a nullity in law because prior to Land Revenue Act, 1967, Karachi area for land matters was subject to Act V of 1879 i,e, Bombay L.R. Code which was afterwards known as Sind L. R. Code and under Act, section 211 empowered Provincial Government, Commissioner etc. To revise order of their subordinate Revenue Officers, at any time but there is no place for Chief Commissioner in that Act. Against the order of learned Collector, the applicant ha then appealed to the Commissioner and not the Chief Commissioner for this reason the applicant after coming into force of L. R. Act, 1967, requested Government for re- opening the case which was forwarded by the Minister of Agriculture to a proper authority viz. Commissioner of Karachi who instead of dealing with the case judicially has disposed it otherwise without even giving opportunity to the applicant to submit his case personally or through his Agent.
On this ground also it is fit case for remanding back to the Commissioner.
(iii) Abnormal delay.-On this point reference is kindly invited to PLD 1962. Lah. 343, case of Mst.
Habiban Bibi v. Nasir Ahmad, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and others in which the High Court declined to interfere against order of the Board that had entertained a revision petition after 21 years."
4. In this connection, the counsel also referred to the rulings quoted as PLD 1967 Lab. 9 and PLD 1957 Lah.
74.
5. I have seen the file of the Chief Commissioner, Karachi pertaining to the appeal of the petitioner.
The order, dated 8-10-1969 of the Chief Commissioner, Karachi is reproduced below : "Heard the appellant. It has not been possible for them to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the entry in the record of rights, we have to accept the entry as correct. The appeal is rejected."
6. The letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Development), Karachi reads as follows : " I am directed to refer to your application, dated nil received through the Minister of Agriculture and Works, Government of Pakistan on the subject noted above and to state that your allegations regarding mutation in the Record-of-Rights have been thoroughly examined. Your case is as old as of 1930 and your appeal has also once been rejected by the former Chief Commissioner in 1956.
According to Revenue Department Standing Order No, 17 old titles in respect of Record of Rights are to be determined by the civil Court. You are accordingly advised to seek remedy through the civil Court.'
' It is clear from the letter that the Commissioner, Karachi has declined to interfere in the matter mainly because the appeal of the petitioner had earlier been rejected by the Chief Commissioner in 1956. No order has been passed by the Commissioner, and no appeal/revision would lie against that letter. The Chief Commissioner/Administrator, Karachi exercised the powers of the Provincial Government under the Pakistan (Estt. Of the Federal Capital) Order, 1948 and as such in the present case, the Chief Commissioner, Karachi, heard the appeal against the order of Collector, Karachi, in his capacity as Provincial Government. The powers which the Administrator Karachi exercised prior to the merger of Karachi with West Pakistan, were preserved to him in his new capacity as Commissioner, Karachi (with certain modifications) under Article 10 of the West Pakistan Administration (Merger of the Federal Territory of Karachi) Ordinance, 1961. The Commissioner, Karachi thus continued to exercise the power of the Provincial Government under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, A 1879, as applicable in Karachi, until the 25th May, 1964, when the powers of the Provincial Government under the said Coda in respect of appeals etc., were conferred on the Board of Revenue. In view of this position, neither the Commissioner, Karachi was competent to pass any order over and above the order, dated 8-10-1956 passed by the Chief Commissioner nor the Board of Revenue is competent to entertain appeal or revision against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, Karachi. Since the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the order passed by the Chief Commissioner, Karachi, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner against the validity of the order and on the point of, limitation are of no avail in the present petition.
7. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.