There is a Register known as Register of "Patwari Candidates", which is being maintained in each District (Tehsilwise) under Para. 3.6 of the Chapter 3 of the Punjab Land Records Manual. The Collector of Lahore District on 23-10-1962 brought the names of 123 persons on this register. The matter went up in the form of an appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who on 29-3-1963, directed that certain irregulari--ties pointed out to him in the preparation of that list should be rectified. A copy of the order of the learned Additional Commissioner has been filed in this Court in the form of Annex. P.
4. This was followed by a memorandum from the Commissioner bearing No. 12211, dated 30-9-1963 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, containing similar directions. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Collector then rectified the earlier list and reduced the number of the Patwari candidates from 123 to 104. The names of those Patwaris, whom he did not consider fit to remain on the register, were dropped. Consequently, a fresh list was issued on 10-5-1968.
2. Against the fresh list, dated 10-5-1968, twelve appeals were filed which were disposed of by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, vide his order dated 8-10-1968 (Annex.P.26). The learned Commissioner set aside the list, dated 10-5-1968 and directed the Collector to re-prepare it after following certain instructions contained in his earlier order, dated 9-12-1967, which had been passed in some other appeals against the termination or removal from service of the appellants in those appeals. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 9-12-1967 is Annex. P.
9. The petitioners are those persons whose names were retained by the Collector even in the new list dated 10-5-1968.
Since the order of the Commissioner directs preparation of a fresh list, the petitioners have come up in writ petition to this Court, taking exception to the same. The case of the petitioners who no doubt are in fact working as Patwaris is that the list prepared by the Collector on 10-5-1968 was final which could not have been made the subject-matter of an appeal before the Commissioner and from that point of view the direction of the Commissioner for the prepara--petition of the list afresh is without lawful authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points: --
(a) That the order of the learned Commissioner dated 8-10-1968 was without lawful authority for the following reasons: -
(i) that the commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal in matters of the present kind ;
(ii) thatthe learned Commissioner at the time of the passing of the impugned order had not beard the petitioners ;
(iii) that the order of the Commissioner dated 8.10-1968 in fact amounts to a review of the order of his predecessor, dated 29-3-1963, (Annex. P/4) and since the impugned order was passed without prior permission of the Board of Revenue under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, therefore, it was without jurisdiction ; and
(iv) that vide order, dated 8-10-1968, the learned Commissioner has, as a matter of fact, legislated by laying down certain principles in addition to those contained in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of Chapter 3 of the Punjab Land Records Manual.
4. From the side of the respondents, it was submitted that under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, the order of the Collector was appeal able before the Commissioner: Similarly, the Commissioner had even the revisional jurisdiction under section 164 of the said Act, and if not as an appeal his order could be replied as having been passed in Revision. Alternatively it was argued that the Commissioner had under subsection (3) of section 13 of the Land Revenue Act, the power or control over all other Revenue Officers in his division. This provision of law was sought to be read with section 4(23) and 4(28) of the Act. It was argued that the power of control would include in it a power to rectify erroneous orders of the subordinate officers because without that the control would be meaningless. In this way, it was submitted that objection to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner was misplaced. It was submitted that no doubt the Commissioner did not hear the petitioners but his order was just of remand and not being a final order the petitioners had not been adversely affected in any manner, especially, when after remand their names were included in the new list which was prepared by the Collector. The concept of review, in the circumstances, it was contended could not be introduced, inasmuch as, the order, dated 20-3-1963 was not an inter partes order, review of which was circumscribed by the same limitations which are applicable to other ordinary orders of the Commissioner. Similarly, the Commissioner could not be said to have entered upon the domain of legislation when he referred to certain observations, which had been made in an earlier appeal decided by him between the different parties, (see Annex. 9, dated 9-12- 1967). It was submitted that the order, dated 9-12-1967, did not affect the rights of the petitioners, inasmuch as, it simply contained certain directions which were calculated to remove the various defects which had cropped up due to non-observance of the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. It was an order directing to redress wrongs and illegalities, which had been in vogue and was in implementation of the rules and principles relevant to the subject as contained in Land Records Manual.
5. The points raised from both sides are interesting but in my opinion need not be resolved, inasmuch as, the writ petition can be disposed of on the short ground that, is is barred under sub- clause (b) of clause (3); of Article 98 of the Late Constitution of 1962 under which it was filed." In the aforesaid provision of the Constitution, it is laid down that a civil servant cannot file a writ petition with regard to his terms and conditions of service except a term or condition of service that is specified in this Constitution. It is self-evident that maintenance of a register, of candidates and the entry and removal of the names of the' Patwari candidates is not specified in the Constitution, but is specified to, place the case at the maximum in favors of the petitioners in departmental rules and instructions. Violation of any such rules, if at all, it had take place in any given case, cannot be made the subject-matter of controversy m the form of a writ petition. See Dr. Muhammad Amin Durrani v Government of West Pakistan and another (1). Respectfully following the la laid down in the aforesaid authority, I am of the view that since th present writ petition does not pertain to such terms and conditions o service of the petitioners which are specified in the Constitution the same is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(1)PLD1966SC99