' Muhammad Afzal respondent who was appointed as a Patwari by the Deputy Commissioner acting as Collector of the District was dismissed after several years service on the 3rd of June 1965 by the Settlement Officer, Multan acting as Collector. He filed a suit to challenge his dissmissal which was decreed in his favour on the ground that the officer dismissing him was not competent to dismiss a Patwari since he was not a Collector of the District. This judgment and decree was maintained in appeal by Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Additional District Judge-II, Multan on the 9th of February 1974. The concurrent judgments and decrees have been challenged by the present revision petition.
2. The only point in this case is whether the Settlement Officer has the power to appoint or dismiss a Patwari. The appointment and dismissal of a Patwari was regulated by the rules framed under section 28 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which was in force at the time of dismissal of the respondent. The above section provided for framing of rules to regulate the appointment and inter alia removal of village officers. The expression village officer according to the definition in section 3(11) incladed a Pat wad. The question raised in this case is not of much importance now in view of the West Pakistan Northern Zone Patwar Subordinate Service Rules, 1963. The Northern Zone to which these rules apply includes among other Districts the District of Multan. Rule 4 of these rules provides that appointment to the service shall be made by the Collector concerned. The term "Collector" is defined as meaning a Collector of a District as defined in the Land Revenue Act, 1.87 and includes a Settlement Officer empowered to exercise the powers of the Collector of a District except for the purpose of Chapter VI of the Land Revenue Act, 1887 (which deals with collection of land revenue). Clearly therefore for purposes of Chapter III of the Act of 1887 which includes section 2% the Settlement Officer, Multan has the powers of a Collector of the District.
3. The objection of the learned counsel of the respondent to the applicability of the Rules of 1963 is that these Rules are not applicable to the petitioner who having been appointed by the Collector of the Dist Act was already in service on the date of enforcement of these rules. He argued that these rules can neither be given nor have been given any retrospective effect.
4. This argument has no force. These rules had come into effect prior to the dismissal of the respondent and applied to his case also at least to the extent it defined the Collector of a District as being inclusive of a Settlement Officer. The respondent's case is that having been appointed by Collector of the District, he can be dismissed or removed from service by an officer of the same rank. A Settlement Officer having been declared as a Collector of a District by the Rules of 1963 was therefore, empowered to dismiss the respondent. The respondent had vested right only to claim that a person other than the Collector of the District cannot dismiss him. But he has no vested right to inflict upon the petitioner a Collector of the District of his own choice or to claim that the power of such Collector should not be or cannot be conferred by the petitioner on any officer other than the Ceputy Commissioner. This would be contrary to section 27 of the Land 'Revenue Act which conferred upon the Provincial Government the power of conferring upon any person the power inter alia of a Collector. The argument about non-retrospectivity of the rules is not therefore of any relevance.
5. The position even before the enforcement of the rules was not different. The word "Collector" was defined in section 6(2) as the Deputy Commissioner of a District. This subsection conceded "that the Deputy Commissioner of the District shall be the Collector thereof". Section 27, however, as stated above, authorised the Provincial Government to confer by notification on any person, any of the powers inter alia of a Collector. Subsection (2) of section 27 equates a person upon whom such power is conferred under subsection (1), with Collector under section 6. It provides that such a person shall be deemed to be a Collector. In view of these provisions if the power of a Collector is found to have been conferred upon the Settlement Officer, he shall be deemed to be a Collector of the District. It is clear from the section that he was not to be subordinate to the Collector of the District since the only subordination envisaged by section 27 is of the Assistant Collector if power of Collector is conferred upon him (ride subsection (3) of section 27). A Settlement Officer, therefore. Is not subordinate to the Collector of the District (Deputy Commissioner). He performs the same duties under the Land Revenue Act as a Collector of the District except to the extent of the functions described in Chapter VI 4 'of the Land Revenue Act. For the purpose of appointment or dismissal of a Patwari which is the subject-matter of Chapter III, he must be deemed to be a Collector and must be equated with the Collector of the District.
5. This result would follow from Appendix VI of the Punjab Settlement Manual which is to be read in the context of para. 229 of the Manual "229. Business assigned to Settlement Officers.-The business under the Tenancy and Land Revenue Acts assigned to Settlement Officers is detailed in Appendix VI. Questions may occasionally arise as to the division of work between the Deputy Commissioner and the Settlement Officer which the instructions in that Appendix do not cover. There it will generally be possible for the two officers concerned to settle for themselves. The rule of decision should be as far as possible to maintain the ordinary course of revenue administration and to avoid weighing the Settlement Officer with any duty which is not essential to the progress of his special work. The fact that a re-assessment of his district is being made is not intended to relieve the Deputy Commissioner of duties other than those connected with assessm ents and village records."
' Para. 229 of the Punjab Settlement Manual states that the business under the Tenancy and Land Revenue Act assigned to the Settlement Officer is detailed in Appendix VI. Appendix VI is entitled as 'Business to be disposed of by Settlement Officers, Director of Land Records and the Commissioner'.
Para. 'A' of this Appendix is a 'Table showing business arising under the Punjab Land Revenue and Tenancy Acts which will be disposed of by the Settlement Collectors'. The important provision under this Appendix in regard to the Land Revenue Act is as follows :- '(1) Chapter III of Land Revenue Act relating to headmen (other than Chief headmen), Kanungos and Patwaris also cases of neglect of duty or disobedience of orders by any person holding office under this chapter so far as those duties or orders relate to business controlled by the Collector. If cases come to the notice of the Settlement Officer requiring action under Land Revenue Rule 21()IV he should report them to the Deputy Commissioner.
' The Collector of the district should consult the Settlement Collector before finally disposing of successions to Zaildarsbips, but is not bound to adopt his recommendation. Proposals for revision of Zaildari arrangements should be prepared by the two Collectors jointly'.
6. It is amply clear from this provision that all matters dealt with in Chapter HI in its section 26 including the appointment and removal of inter alia Potwar, are within the scope of the powers of a Settlement Officer upon whom powers of the Collector of the District have been conferred. As stated above and as is also clear from para. 233 of the Settlement Manual, the only power of the Collector of the District under the Land Revenue Act which has not been conferred upon the Settlement Officer is the power under Chapter VI relating to the collection of revenue. This Chapter consists of sections 61 to 96 of the above Act. This Chapter does not deal with any function regarding appointment or dismissal of a Patwari. I am, therefore, of the view that the Settlement Officer for the purpose of dismissing toe respondent must be deemed to be a Collector of the District, as such no objection can be taken to the order of dismissal passed by him. A similar view was held by my learned brother Shafi-ur-R ahman, J. In Sher Muhammad v. Member, Board of Revenue etc., Writ Petition No, 586-S/ 1976 decided on the 13th of December 1974.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that even if a different view is taken by this Court, that would not be sufficient for invoking the revisionsl jurisdiction under section 115, Cr. P. C.
This argument is not tenable since none of the points considered in this judgment have been taken into consideration by the learned Additional District Judge. He has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by ignoring the provisions of section 27 of the Land Revenue Act, and the powers of the Settlement Officer detailed in Appendix VI of the Punjab Settlement Mannual I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the judgments and! Decrees of the learned Courts below and dismiss the suit of the respondent. I, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.