-- Mst. Sarwar Khatoon, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was allotted alternate state land measuring 15 Acres under Chashama Barrage Scheme. During verification it was found that land acquired from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was below the floor of eligibility for allotment of alternate state land, which resulted in the Cancellation of the allotment vide Collector's order dated 30.4.1990. Being aggrieved by the said order, she filed an appeal before commissioner, Multan Division, who vide impugned order dated 17.3.1991 dismissed it on the ground that total owner-ship of the lessee was to the extent of 15 kanals out of which 7k-12 M was sailab land and only 5 Marlas of land was Chahi which was inadequate to entitle her to alternate land.
Hence this revision petition under Section 164 of the West pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, read with Section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands(Punjab) Act, 1912 against the order dated 30.4.1990.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Sarwar Khatoon the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner was allotted 15 acres of land on 30.3.1971 in Noorpur Thal as a affectee of Chashma Barrage. The area owned by her was as follows:- "4K-5M Chahi 8K-1M Sailab rest Banjar."
All the dues were cleared and only the last installment was pending when a case for general review was made out under ex-parte order dated 30.4.1990 and her allotment was cancelled. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner. The history of the case has been overlooked by all officers. The Lahore High Court's order dated 15.2.1987 in Regular First Appeal No.90/1975 throws some lights on the back ground of the case. The review was ordered after 17 years and DC/Collector Mianwali did not have the territorial jurisdiction for review because after creation of District Khushab he was not legally competent to make the order pertaining to other district. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained that the Board of Revenue's Policy letter dated 18.9.1968 enunciated the policy on the subject. The total land owned by the petitioner was less than 16 kanals and hence she had no entitlement to alternate allotment of land in Noorpur Thal. It was further maintained that the Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgement on the subject had set at rest all the points raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner and thus the revision petition was liable to dismissal.
4. I have considered the arguments and examined the case record. The total entitlement of the petitioner works out to 15K-2M out of which 4K-5M is Chahi, 8K-1M Sailab and 2K-3M Ghair mumkin.
She was thus not eligible for allotment of the alternate land. The point regarding territorial jurisdiction of the DC/Collector was not raised before the Commissioner in appeal and hence cannot be raised by the petitioner at the revisional stage.. The question of jurisdiction if accepted one, cannot be raised/respened subsequently in higher forum. However, it may be noted here that the re-veri-fication of entitlement was done in pursuance of the direction of the Board of Revenue and the DC/Collector Mianwali was authorised by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division to review this case as the original allotment was made by the DC/Collector Mianwali. There is no time limit for suo moto review by a Revenue Officer under Section 163 of the land Revenue Act. Further that the Supreme Court of pakistan has held in Civil petition for Leave to Appeal No.600-(1) if 1991 that" every such functionary and authority has to guard its own proceedings against fraud, misrepresentation, abuse and criminality. There can be no question of asking the authority that either disclose the fraud alleged today or do not take up the ground of fraud ever alter. Such a scrutiny prior to conferment of the proprietary rights is a duty under the law and such an order preventing the authority from discharging its own duty under the law could not be passed."The revision is thus found without any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.