This is a revision petition against the order dated 6-6-1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, -Lahore whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners filed in his Court against the order dated 24-5-1992 of A.C./Collector, Ferozwala.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner being the landowners/mortgagors filed an application for the restitution of the land mortgaged with Ch. Zahoor Din s/o Ch. Ahmad Ali. During the pendency of the case Ch. Zahoor Din moved an application for the determination of the compensation for the improvements of land affected by him during the period of the mortgage.
The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 24-5-1992 appointed Girdawar Halqa along with Patwari Halqa as Commission to visit the site and carry out the assessment of the improvements on the land in dispute. The petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore. Their appeal was dismissed vide orders dated 6-6-1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division. Hence the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has based his claim on the following grounds: (a)Under Rule 12 of the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Rules, 1969 the mortgagee has to file a statement of accounts at the time of filing the complaint. Since no such statement or accounts was filed by the mortgagee at the time of lodging complaint, there was no scope for determination or assessm ent of improvements made on the land;
(b) there is no provision for the delegation of powers by the Collector to make an assessment of the cost of improvement made by the mortgagee.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that according to basic document i.e. Agreement between the mortgagors and the mortgagee, terms and conditions of mortgage were laid down and a period of 15 years was fixed for the mortgage. According to section 12 of the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act responsibility of 'the determination of the compensation lies upon the Collector. It has further been stated that under section 13 of the said Act the Collector can award compensation for improvements made in the land by the mortgagee and can order the mortgagor to deposit such amount of compensation to the mortgagee. It has further been contended that it is not obligatory on the Collector to make the assessment of the compensation to be paid to the mortgagee himself as he can get a report from the field staff. It has further been stated that the Collector has certain powers of Civil Court under section 19 of the Act (ibid) for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act.
5. I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.
6. First contention of the petitioners is that no statement of accounts was filed by the mortgagee at the proper time and it cannot be entertained subsequently. This contention, I am afraid, is not tenable as under section 12(b) Collector has the powers to determine the amount of compensation for the improvements made in the land by the mortgagee. This section makes it obligatory upon him to do so. The time of filing of statements of accounts or the claim by the mortgagee does not seem to be so material as to effect the interest of the parties in the land.
7. The second contention of the petitioners that the Collector does not have the powers to delegate his authority given under the Act and to appoint a Commission also does not hold water. Calling for a report from .The field staff or appointment of a Commission for the purpose of inspection and report does not amount to delegation of authority and the Collector is well within his jurisdiction and legal authority to obtain necessary reports from the field staff or appoint Commission for making an assessm ent of the compensation to be paid to the mortgagee for the improvements made in the land. It is not the intention ofthe law and the rules made there under that if there are one hundred cases pending before the Collector he should go to each and every site and himself make an assessm ent of each and every improvement made in the land.
8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 6-6-1992 and 24-5-1992 passed respectively by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore and A.C./Collector, Ferozwala. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order upheld.