' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 11.5-72 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha whereby the revision petition of respondent was remanded to the Collector (Consolidation) for redetermination in accordance with set principles of Consolidation.
2. (1) I have heard the parties and perused the record.
(ii) The Scheme of village Mehram Sial, Tehsil Shorkot, District 'hang was confirmed on 30.6-1970 by Collector (Cons). Under section 10(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance. A revision petition against this order was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) about one year and 7 months later. Actually this should have been Wed as an appeal while it is actually filed as a revision as section 13 of the Ordinance provides only for suo motu revisions and not revisions on applications. The time limit for filing appeals is 60 days under section 11(3) of the Ordinance. It was therefore hopelessly time-barred. But even if it is taken as a revision, the contention of the respondent that no limitation operates against revision Before Additional Commissioner/Collector under sections 13(2) of the Ordinance is not valid. A reference to the wording of section 13 would show that a distinction has been made between suo maw revision on the one hand and revisions filed on application, on the other. In the case of Board of Revenue under section 13(a) and its the case of Additional Commissioner, Collector under section 13(2), no time limit has been provided for suo motu revision. A party has been given the right to move the Board of Revenue in revision under section 13(b) and in that case the limitation period has been fixed as 90 days. No provision has been made in this section for revision by Additional Commissioner/Collector on petition of appeal by any party. If the idea of the framers of law was to provide for revision on appeal by a party in the case of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector also, they would have inserted a section accordingly analogous to section 13(b). That having not been done, the only inference is that while Additional Commissioner/Collector can move in revision on their own, they cannot do so in case any party requests for the same. If the contention of the respondent to the appeal that there is no time limit provided for any party to move the Additional Commissioner/Collector in revision Is accepted, it will tantamount to investing Additional Commissioner (Cons.)/ Collector with greater powers than conferred on the Board of Revenue under section 13(b) where the time limit for moving the Board of Revenue by any party is restricted to 90 days. Obviously this will be against the spirit and wording of section 13 of the Ordinance.
(iii) I therefore hold that the impugned order was actually passed on an appeal under section 11 of the Ordinance and not a revision. That being the case, the petition before the Additional Commissioner was hopelessly time-barred. He has said nothing as to why he has admitted a time-barred petition. It is therefore without force of law and is accordingly set aside.
(iv) However since it has been pressed before me that the Scheme was passed without the consent and that even the Mode of Partition was changed without the approval of the competent authority. I will like the case to be taken up on the suo motu side in order to see whether the contentions are correct and if so whether any damage is caused to the parties.