' This revision petition is directed against the order of Additional Commissioner (Rev), Bahawalpur Division dated 28-4-1986 by which he dismissed the appeal of petitioners in limine and upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawaplur dated 12-8-1985.
2. Brief facts of the case are that it was brought to the notice of the District Collector Bahawalpur through his office that one Siddique Beg had sold by oral transaction his land to Nek Muhammad caste Taili and had also given possession to the vendee. Muhammad Siddique Beg was owner of 5 kanals 12 marlas in Khasra No,327/2, Killa No,22, measuring 7 kanals 17 marlas. At the time of sanctioning of mutation of oral sale of 5 kanals 12 marlas the Patwari had not prepared Tatimma Shajra. It was requested to the Collector that permission be accorded for preparation of Tatimma Shajra. The District Collector granted permission on 23-12-1984. Thereafter, AC II Grade vide his order dated 1-4-1985 passed order laying down Tatimma Shajra. The present petitioners filed an appeal before the District Collector against the order of AC II Grade dated 1-4-1985. The District Collector vide his order dated 12-8-1985 dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the order dated 23-12-1984 was passed by him, therefore, the appeal could not lie before him. The District Collector directed that appeal should be filed before the proper forum. Consequently an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Bahawalpur, who dismissed the appeal against the order of the District Collector dated 12-8-1985. He inter alia observed that they should have filed appeal against the order dated 23-12-1984. Hence this revision petition.
3. The counsel for petitioners has contended that permission was sought to prepare Tatimma Shajra after a long time which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector on 23-12-1984 in the absence of the petitioners. This was an executive order and could not be termed as a judicial order. Hence it was wrongly held by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector in his order dated 12-8- 1985 that he was not competent to entertain appeal against the order of AC II Grade dated 1-4- 1985 passed on the strength of his earlier order dated 23-12-1984. He further stated that the Revenue Officer/AC-II had wrongly prepared Tatimma Shajra as it was against the record as well as the position at the spot. He requested that both orders of lower Courts as well as order of Revenue Officer are against the law and liable to be set aside.
4. The counsel for respondents has stressed that the petitioners should have challenged the earlier order of Deputy Commissioner/Collector dated 23-12-1984 allowing preparation of Tatimma Shajra before the competent forum and he should not have agitated against the order of Revenue Officer/AC II, which was passed in compliance with this order. He pleaded that the learned Additional Commissioner had rightly upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner/Collector dated 12- 8-1985.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also examined the relevant record. The order dated 23-12-1984 of the District Collector is at best a sanction granted under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act 1967 to carry out the correction in record. I may also reiterate the view which this Court has taken persistently that sanction granted under Section 163 is not an appealable order. Hence there could be no need to file an appeal against the order dated 23-12-1984 of the District Collector. Howerver, the order dated 1-4-1985 of AC/II Grade passed in pursuance of the sanction granted by the Collector was an original order and appeal was competent against the order before the appellate Court which is normally the Court of AC/Collector. The right course for the concerned party was to file appeal before the AC/Collector against the order dated 1-4-1985 of AC II Grade. The party failed to do so. The District Collector before whom they filed the appeal also erred in not deciding it on merits or entrusting it for disposal to the competent forum. I am constrained to remark that neither the District Collector nor the Additional Commissioner appreciated the correct legal position in this regard. Both the impugned orders suffer from serious legal infirmities, and therefore, cannot be sustained.
Consequently the orders dated 12-8-1985 of the District Collector and dated 29-4-1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Rev), Bahawalpur are set aside and the case is remanded to the AC/Collector Hasilpur for fresh decision of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.