' This is a revision petition against the orders of the District Collector, Bhakkar dated 2-11-1986 whereby he reviewed his previous order dated 19-8-1985 and restored the order .Of EACO/Collector, dated 16-3-1985.
2. Facts of the case are that Muhammad. Rafique respondent was leassed out Khasra Nos. 275/1 to 5, ;276/1 to 4, 7 to 10, 276/5/2, 6/2 in . Nak No,18/Rakh Hyderabad under Temporary Cultivation Scheme. He applied for proprietary rights in terms of Notification dated 3-9-1979 as well as under Notification dated 20-4-1983. The application under Notification dated 20-4-1983 was rejected by the Collector on 31-12-1983 and its appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner. He filed civil suit which also did not succeed. Subsequenly with reference to the above development he approached the EACO/Collector, Bhakkar who vide order dated 16-3-1985 allowed his proprietary rights under notification dated 3-9-1979. Bashir Ahmad submitted application to the DC/Collector, Bhakkar alleging that Muhammad Rafique had obtained proprietary rights by misrepresentatiorPof facts and without disclosing the rejection of his application, appeal and civil suit. He had alleged that land had been allotted to him (Bashir Ahmad) since 1984. The DC/Collector heard the parties, examined the record and observed that Muhammad Rafique had obtained proprietary rights by misrepresentation of facts and therefore decided to proceed against him under clause 12 of notification dated 3-9-1979 and vide order dated 19-8-1985 resumed the land. Aggrieved by the order the respondent appealed to the Commissioner, who observed that application of Muhammad Rafique for proprietary rights under notification dated 20-4-1983 was formally rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, on 28-2-1984 on the ground that the land in dispute was not covered by the scheme. The EACO, Bhakkar had powers only to determine the eligibility of Muhammad Rafique and had no jurisdiction to pass final orders for the grant of proprietary rights.
He therefore vide order dated 19-10-1985 upheld the order of DC/Collector, Bhakkar, dated 19-8- 1985.
4. Muhammad Rafique then applied to the DC /Collector for a review of his order dated 19-8-1985, on the ground that he had filed a Writ Petition No,4944 of 1985 alleging that the disputed land was not reserved for Tubewell lot and he was therefore eligible \,under notification dated 20-4-1983 and that on the wrong report the application for proprietary rights was rejected and if on the scrutiny of revenue record they are allowed proprietary rights they could withdraw this Writ Petition.
The DC/Collector then held that the land was not included in the Tubewell Scheme and allowed proprietary rights to Muhammad Rafique and reviewed his order dated 19-8-1985 resuming the land in favour of State. Hence this revision petition.
5. I have heard the parties. The petitioner filed an incomplete case and not a single certified copy of document has been attached. In any case main contention was that the DC/Collector was not competent to review his earlier order without prior sanction of superior authority. He 'argued that disqualification for grant cf proprietary rights under one Notification cannot be remedied by applying the criteria to another Notification (i.e, dated 3-9-1979). He argued that after the resumption of land from the respondent it had been leased out to the petitioner and he was in possession of the same and the DC/Collector while passing this order had ignored the revenue record. He claimed that the petitioner has constructed his dwelling houses in the disputed land.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Collector could review the order passed by himself under section 163(1) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 without obtaining permission from the Commissioner. The DC/Collector had therefore passed a proper order.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case. The District Collector, Bhakkar in his impugned order has held that the land involved was 'Baqia Sarkar' and not part of the Tubewell Scheme. It is noticed from the unattested copies of previous orders supplied by the petitioner that the main reason for rejection of the application of the respondent for grant of proprietary rights was that the land was included in the permanent scheme. Now that the said disability has been declared to be non-existent by the District Collector, after due scrutiny of revenue record, I do not see why the respondent should suffer from wrong findings of lower staff.
The petition is therefore rejected subject to the respondent being eligible for grant of proprietary rights under notification dated 3-9-1979 which may be got re-checked by the District Collector before signing of said deed.
Petition rejected.