' The petitioner alleging to have been ejected unauthorisedly filed an application for restoration of possession under the "Provisions for Restoration of Tenancies of Tenants Ejected in Unauthorised Manner" made vide Notification No, LH-III-393-77/947-LC, dated 9-3-1977. This application was heard by an Assistant Collector 1st Grade who dismissed the same vide order, dated 7-6-1993. The petitioner filed an appeal which was heard by an Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Multan who dismissed the same on 18-4-1994. A revision filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Multan Division was, however, allowed and his application for restoration of possession was accepted vide order, dated 16-7-1996. Feeling aggrieved respondents Nos.2 to 5 filed a revision petition on 18-7-1996 which was entertained by respondent No,1 who vide order, dated 21-7-1996 suspended the said order, dated 16-7-1996 of the Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved of this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No,1 has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition filed by the private respondents as according to para. 3(3) of the said notification only a tenant can file revision and that too before the Commissioner and according to para.3(4) the order passed by the Commissioner in revision shall be final. Notices were issued to respondents but no one has turned up.
3. It is true that the memo. Of revision petition (Annexure "J") narrates that the revision has been filed under section 164 of the Punjab .Land Revenue Act but it is also true that mere wrong mention of the provision of law would not affect the merits of a proceeding. To my mind the revision is competent under para. 25(7) of M.L.R.
115. The said notification relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been issued under section 4 of the said M.L.R. Which empowers the Land Commission to make provisions for implementation of the said M.L.R.
115. Provisions under section 4 cannot be made in a vacuum and have to be relatable to some provisions of M.L.R.115. Learned counsel has been unable to point out any provision other than under para. 25 of M.L.R.115 which caters for the rights and obligations of the tenants. Thus, any provision made in respect of tenants under section 4 will have to be read in the context of para.
25. Sub-para. (7) of the said para. 25 confers jurisdiction on the Board of Revenue to call for records of proceedings pending or decided by the Commissioner or the Collector and to pass such orders as it deems fit provided the revision is filed within time prescribed therein. I draw support for my said view from the observations in the case of Lucas alias Luci and others v. S.M. Nasim, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another PLD 1984 SC 227, wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan while considering a similar provision in the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977 observed as follows:-- "It is not necessary to examine the reasoning of the learned Judge because even if it be assumed that under any rule, a final approach through revision before Board of Revenue in matters dealt with under para. 25 is prohibited or not provided or the rule is silent in that behalf, the provisions in sub-para. (7) of para. 25 make it amply clear that the Board of Revenue can at any time of its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any case or proceedings, 'Under this paragraph' which is pending or in which a Collector or Commissioner has passed an order for purpose of satisfying itself regarding correctness, legality or propriety of such proceedings or order.
' Thus, even if the ejectment rules framed under Marital Law Regulation 115, which make section 56 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act applicable to revisions etc. Prohibits a second revision to the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue could still, in accordance with the provisions of sub-para. (7) of para.25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 which has overriding effect call for the record of any case or proceedings under the said paragraph to scrutinize any order passed by a Collector or a Commissioner and proceed to pass any order in relation thereto."
' The similar effect are observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Samad Khan v. Khalid Khan 1985 SCM R 770 and Haji Jam Rose Khan v. Wazir Muhammad etc. 1992 SCM R 2103. Even otherwise I find that the petitioner could have raised this matter before the learned Member, Board of Revenue but he has rushed to this Court against an interlocutory order granting stay and it is unfortunate that the matter remained pending here since the last more than four years.
Consequently, this writ petition is without any force and is accordingly dismissed. However, office to convey to respondent No,1 to take up and to decide the revision (R.O.R. No,1189 of 1996) pending before him in accordance with law within three months of the receipt of this order under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court. Parties are left to bear their own costs.