' Brief facts of the case are that the appellants applied to the Tehsildar for partition of joint Khata No,68/63 situated in Chak No,115/DB, Tehsil Yazman. The Khata was partitioned on 28-7-1986. The respondents challenged that order before the AC/Collector which was subsequenfly referred to, the District Collector for adjudication who vide his order dated 4-11-1986 dismissed the' same on the ground that appeal was not properly presented in his Court. The respondents challenged that order before the Additional Commissioner who vide his impugned order dated 30-1-1988 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the District Collector for fresh hearing. Hence this appeal under section 161 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants is the written arguments maintained that by virtue of distribution of business between the AC/Collector and Deputy Commissioner/Collector, the appeals could be heard only by the DC/Collector. The respondents preferred an appeal before the AC/Collector which was forwarded by him to the DC/Collector. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector on the question of limitation. The respondents' revision was accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, vide the impugned order and the case was remanded to the. Deputy Commissioner/Collector on the ground that the appeal was preferred within time and that AC/Collector and the DC/Collector had concurrent jurisdiction and the AC/Collector could have entertained the appeal. It is just distribution of work by the Board of Revenue that appeal against the order of Tehsildar regarding Partition of Khata is to be heard only
(by) the District Collector." The learned counsel contended that time spent in filing appeal under wrong legal advice before incompetent forum (District Court) instead of filing it before competent forum (High Court) cannot be excluded in computing limitation period prescribed for filing appeal.
Delay accruing from wrong legal advice or negligence of counsel is not covered by section 14. He relied on 1986 M LD 2283, and on 1985 SCM R 1003, to the effect that "Gross ignorance of law on part of counsel, not to be regarded as ill-advice and as such not good ground for condonation of delay.". It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents in the, written arguments maintained in rebuttal that the respondents were not heard by the Tehsildar/AC-I. A metalled road constructed by the Highway Department passes through Rectangle No,108, Killas Nos.4/1-18, 7/2-0, 14/2-2, 17/2-6, 24/2- 8, the total area 10 Kanals 14 Marlas. This area was acquired in 1985 but the formal mutation was not sanctioned in favour of the Highway Department. This acquired area had not been taken into account by the Revenue Officer while making the order of partition and if the order of the revenue officer is implemented, then respondent No,1 would be deprived of the area equal to the area of the road. The learned counsel prayed' that this Court through exercise of Suo Motu jurisdiction can correct the illegal orders and relied upon PLD 1973 Rev. 29, PLD 1973 Rev. 30, etc., and as the superior Courts held in PLD 1990 SC 859 and PLD 1989 Lahore 322, 384, 478.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. It is admitted by either party that the appeal dated 27-8-1986, against the order of the Tehsildar/AC-I, dated 28-7-1986 was presented in the Court of AC/Collector, Yazman, which was forwarded by the latter to the DC/Collector on 22-9-1986. The powers of the Collector were conferred on the Assistant Commissioners vide Notification No 11481-69/5123-E (F) VI, dated 15-11-1969 in all matters except the following which were specifically assigned to the Collector of the District.
(i) Appeals against the orders of ACs Ist Grade in cases of partition;
(ii) correction in Revenue Records;
(iii) review of mutations;
(iv) suspension and remission of Land Revenue; and
(v) creation of demand of Land Revenue.
' Although there have been further notifications on the subject adding appointment and 'removal of Headman to the list of functions assigned to the Collector of District vide Notification No,454- B./87/818-LR-IV, dated 10-5-1987, yet the notification issued in 1969 is to be treated as the relevant notification for the purposes of this case. There is no doubt that the appeals in partition matters against the order of the ACl/Tehsildar can only be heard and decided by the Collector of the district. To that extent the appeal was presented in the wrong forum and was subsequently dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner/Collector on score of limitation. Since the partition proceedings have omitted to take into consideration the point of land acquired by the Highway Department for construction of a metalled road, which may cause permanent loss to one of the parties therefore there is a case for decision on merits. The impugned order of the District Collector thus appears to be harsh and has rightly been' set aside by the Additional Commissioner. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
5. What surprises me in this case are the gratuitous remarks of the learned Additional Commissioner regarding distribution of work by the Board of Revenue between various officers (reproduced in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants). The learned Additional Commissioner appears to have overlooked That this distribution of work has sanctity of law behind it under sections 14 and 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and if any Revenue Officer proceeds with a business which has not been assigned to him such a proceeding or order shall obviously be unlawful, incompetent and without jurisdiction. The above observations of the learned Additional Commissioner amount to total ignorance and complete disregard of the law and is violative of the hierarchy of the Revenue Officers prescribed in section 7 read with section 17 of the Act ibid. Amounting to insubordination. The learned I Additional Commissioner should therefore be called upon to show cause as to why he should not be reported to the Government for debarring him from further postings under the Board of Revenue.
6. The order in this case was reserved and shall be communicated to the parties.