This petition has been filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated l9-7-1976 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore, whereby petitioners' revision petition was dismissed as bring not maintainable in his Court. The learned Addl.
Commissioner (Cons.) has taken this view on the strength of a case decided by my learned predecessor Mr. Masroor Hassan Khan, published in PLD 1977 Rev. 10 wherein it was held that in the case of a Commissioner or Collector the law had not provided for revision en the request of a party.
The issue was net, however, discussed at length in that judgment. In my view, the matter is not free from doubt. In order, therefore, to examine the matter in detail and to bring out the legal position clearly I invited the Advocate-General Punjab, to assist this Court in consideration of the following legal issues:-
(a) Whether a Commissioner or Collector is competent to act under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance in exercise of his suo motu power only or whether a revision petition by an aggrieved party is also competent under this Revision of law ;
(b) If a revision petition by an aggrieved party is competent under section 13 (2) of the Ordinance, whether there is any period of limitation within which such a petition may be filed before the Commissioner or the Collector.
2. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Khan, Assistant Advocate-General appeared on behalf of the Advocate- General.
3. Section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 leads as under:- "13. Power to call for and examine record.-(1) The Board of the Revenue may-
(a) at any time of its own motion call for the record of any proceedings under this Ordinance rending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer ; or
(b) on application made to it in that behalf by a person aggrieved within 90 days or the passing of an order in any proceedings under this Ordinance by any Revenue or Consolidation Officer, and after giving such person an opportunity of being heard, call for the record of such proceedings.
(2)A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue or Consolidation Officer under his control.
(3)If in any case in which a Collector has called for the record under subsection (2) he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.
(4)The Board of Revenue may in any case called for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under subsection (2) or reported to him under subsection (3) pass such order as it or he thinks fit Provided that no order shall be passed under this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard."
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has argued that subsection (2) of section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 whereunder a Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under the Ordinance pending before or disposed of by any Revenue or Consolidation Officer under his control is similar to subsection (2) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 958 under which the Chief Settlement Commissioner should at any time call for the record of any case or proceeding under the Act in which a Settlement Commissioner or Additional Settlement Commissioner or Deputy Settlement Commissioner or Assistant Settlement Commissioner had passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such order and could pass such order in relation thereto as he thought fit provided that no such order could be passed revising or modifying any order affecting any person without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that the two provisions of law are identical in nature. With reference to the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the learned Assistant Advocate- General referred to a ruling of the Lahore High Court reported in the case Mst. Amir Begum v. Umar Din and others wherein a Division Bench of that Court had held as stated below:- "It follows, therefore, that if an application for revision is presented to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it cannot be said to be incompetent. Subsection (2) of section 20 of the Act, which confers on the Chief Settlement Commissioner powers of revision, is couched in language which is not materially different to that employed with regard to powers of revision given to High Courts by section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it has never been doubted that an application can be put in to move the High Court to exercise its powers under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
The learned Judges came to the conclusion that an application can be made to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for exercise of his powers under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Act.
The learned Assistant Advocate-General has accordingly argued that an application by an aggrieved party is not specifically excluded by section 13, subsection (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance. However, calling for the record is not mandatory (as was held by the Lahore High Court in the above case) nor is it necessary to give a bearing to the party unless the impugned order is altered or modified or unless the Court considers it otherwise necessary to hear the party in the interest of justice.1
6. As for the second issue pertaining to the period of limitation for filing an application by an aggrieved party under section 13(2) of the Ordinance the learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that though the law has not provided for any period of limitation for the exercise of suo mow revisional powers by a Commissioner or Collector, in the case of a petition by a private party it should be considered to be 90 days as has been prescribed under subsection (1) (b) of section 13 of the Ordinance for an application filed by an aggrieved party before the Board of Revenue. Lie also referred to the view taken in this behalf by my learned Predecessor (Mr. Masroor Hassan Khan) in the case mentioned earlier.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents agrees with the arguments advanced by the Assistant Advocate-General.
8. After due consideration of these arguments and the law cited in support thereof I come to the conclusion that an aggrieved person can invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner or Collector under sub-section (2) of section !3 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance. 1960, by filing a petition before him. But calling of the record is not mandatory. Though hearing the party is also not obligatory before a summary dismissal' of an application made by an aggrieved party it would be desirable and in the interest of justice to give a hearing to the applicant. If, after hearing the petitioner, the Commissioner or Collector comes to the conclusion that material injustice has been done to him he may call for the record and take further proceedings in accordance with the law ; otherwise the petition will be liable to dismissal.
9. As for the period of limitation for presenting an application for revision under the said provision of law I agree with the view taken by my learned Predecessor that it cannot be more than 99 days as prescribed in the case of an application made to the Board of Revenue under subsection (1) (b) of section 13 of the Ordinance.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion the case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) to consider the revision petition afresh and dispose it of in the light of the legal position explained above. PLD 1961 Lah. 360