1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- Leave to appeal was granted to a declarant under Land Reforms Act, 1977 to examine whether the Produce Index Value of the land owned by the appellant was to be calculated according to its "Adjoining Assessme nt Circle" or the "Old Assessment Circle" within which at one stage of time it fell, and which "Old Assessment Circle" was abolished much before the introduction of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act).
2. ' The Appellant declared his holding under the Act. It came under scrutiny before the Deputy Land Commissioner Multan. On account of the settlement operations having taken place, the Assessm ent Circle in which the land of the appellant was located was changed from 'Tulumba' to 'Uttar'. As the Assessm ent Circle Uttar was not incorporated in the Produce Index Unit Booklet, a controversy arose as to what should he the principle of calculation of its Produce Index Units. The quality of land was by and large described as 'Nal Nehri'. The Appellant wanted that it should be assessed according to the value in adjoining assessment circles while the Land Commissioner calculated it according to the Old Assessment Circle of Tulamba.
3. ' Without availing of the remedies of Appeal and Revision, the Appellant straight-away filed a Constitution Petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 7-5-1978 and the High Court dealt with the question in the following words:-- "The type of the lands of the petitioner is mentioned in the Tulamba assessment circle as given in the Jantari. It is evaluated at 74 Produce Index Units. There is thus no doubt that the figures as given in the assessm ent circle Tulamba in the Jantari are relevant to the Uttar circle and one does not have to go to the adjoining circle to find an equivalent unitary value.
4. ' It was then contended by the learned counsel that the same point alongwith others had been raised in some petitions filed previously in respect of 1972 Land Revenue and that the petitioners will be placed in a disadvantageous position if those petitioners succeed after the present one is dismissed. The contention, however, has no merit. However, the request that the petitioner should not be debarred from challenging this impugned order again, if the petitioner is successful in other petitions I do not think he will be debarred from taking a relief thereunder and I do not think any particular direction is needed from this Court. This petition, however, has no merit and is dismissed in limine."
5. ' Mr. Zafar Yasin, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that admittedly the Assessm ent Circle 'Uttar' does not find mention in the Booklet of 'Produce Indices for Districts of West Pakistan published under the authority of West Pakistan Land Commission'. Therefore, recourse to para. 6(b) of the Introductory portion of the Booklet was justified and denial of the benefits to the appellant by the Deputy Land Commissioner was against law. The learned counsel has also relied on a decision of this Court in Federal Land Commission, Islamabad v. Said Rehmat Shah and 22 others (1984 SCMR 669).
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, contended that the decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner conforms to the instructions of the Land Commission and the practice of which specific mention would have been found if the appellant had taken recourse to the statutory right of appeal and revision before the Land Commission.
7. ' The expression 'Produce Index Unit' has been defined in the Act itself in clause (11) of section 2 as hereunder:-- "'Produce index unit' means the measure in terms of which the comparative productivity of an area of land of a particular kind in a particular assessment circle or area was computed and expressed for the purposes of the schemes relating to the resettlement of displaced persons on 'land or was determined under the provisions of the repealed Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, and the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and in respect of the assessment circle or area where no such unit was determined, such measure as may be determined, by the Commission for the Province within which such assessm ent circle or area is situated."
8. ' Para 6 of the Booklet relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant is reproduced hereunder:--
6. In cases where:--
(a) No Produce Indices are found prescribed for any particular class of irrigated or unirrigated land, the Produce Indices of the highest class of the irrigated or unirrigated soil, as the case may be, shall be taken for the purpose of evaluating the area concerned.
(b) Produce Indices have not been separately provided even for irrigated or unirrigated land, as the case may be, while any such category of land is actually found to exist, highest Produce Index Units of the same kind of soil in any of the adjoining Assessment Circles will be adopted for evaluating the area concerned."
(c) Reading the two provisions together, it is clear that the situation which has arisen and the controversy requiring decision has been provided for in the definition of 'Produce Index Unit' itself.
9. The Land Commission for the Province has been made the repository of a residuary power to decide such a controversy. In the statutory scheme of things, the decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner impugned by the Appellant could be taken to the Land Commission and the Land Commission as the repository of that power could have dealt with the situation.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General that the Land Commission has already either dealt with such a situation or that it has delegated its power under section 2 clause (11) to Deputy Land Commissioner, has not convinced us because we do not find any mention of it any where or in any record to substantiate it. The notification or the delegation order or a decision of the Land Commission itself could substantiate this submission but no such material has been made available.
11. ' In the light of facts stated and the decision of this Court in Chief Land Commissioner and others v.
12. Liaquat Hayat Khan and others (1983 SCMR 215), we would accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of High Court and remand the case to the Land Commission for the Province of Punjab for decision of the controversy as is required by clause (11) of section 2 of the Act. No order as to costs.