ORDER IMTIAZ MASRUR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II).- This is a revision petition against the order dated 21.9.1988 of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The facts are that in Settlement operations in village Bara Manga, Tehsil Shikargah, District Sialkot, Khasra No. 3879 measuring 4 marlas was withdrawn from Ghaus Khan petitioner and given to Nazir Khan respondent and in its place Khasra No. 2328 measuring 4 marlas was withdrawn from Nazir Khan respondent and given to Ghaus Khan, petitioner. The said modification was approved/confirmed by the A.C./Collector vide his order dated 6.7.1983. The petitioner filed and appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, which was dismissed vide his order dated 21.9.1988. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the settlement operations in the village took place in the year 1977-78, while the consolidation operation took place in 1987-88. He further stated that the disputed land measuring 4 marlas in Khasra No: 3879 was given to Ghaus Khan. The new number allotted was 3042. The learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that 4 marlas had been taken away from the petitioner without any lawful authority.
It has further been stated that the petitioner came to know about the impugned t order on 7.5.1984 but he failed to get a copy of the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other had, stated that the Collector's order dated 6.7.1983 had not been challenged. Even in the revision petition collector's order has not been challenged nor has a copy been attached. He further stated that the possession was with the respondent, and entries in the Mutation Register had also been made. He further stated that Ghaus Khan was present on 6.7.1983 when the Collector passed the order and, therefore, his appeal was badly time barred.
6. In his right of reply the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 the disputed land measuring 4 marlas was in the name of the petitioner. In Misl-e- Haqiat Ishtimal 1987-88 also this area was shown in the name of the petitioner.
7. I have given my careful thought to the arguments put forth by both sides.
8. The main grounds for rejection of the appeal in the impugned order were that the appeal was time barred, copy of the impugned order had not been attached and the conclusion of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) was that the proceedings regarding modification of the land in dispute had been made in the presence of the parties. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it was based more on technical grounds than on merit. The petitioner claims that he had put in it of effort and energy in planting the fruit trees etc. It will be more appropriate to decide the case on merits rather than on mere technicalities. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala dated 21.9.1988 is, therefore, set aside, the revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the collector for decision strictly on merit and according to law.