' A. K. KHALID (Member).-This revision petition before the Full Board calls in question the appellate order dated 30-10.1975 of the Single Member (Mr. M. Aslam Avais) reversing the order dated 13- 5.1975 of the Commissioner, Multan Division, by which he restored the Lot No, 23 situated in Chak No 325/17. D. A. To Ali Mohammad petitioner and his brother Khadim Hussain and allowed them to deposit the outstanding amount in instalments.
2. In the year 1951, the Thal Development Authority acquired the entire shamlat areas in the old village Sumra Thal Kalan, Tehsil Leiah, in the interest of speedy colonization of its projects. As this area included 48,871 acres of evacuee land, the T. D. A. Obtained approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, for its purchase vide his Memo. No, 149/AQN/M ZD 145, dated 26-2-1962 and No, 6007/AQN/MZD, dated 8-50 963. Subsequently, however, on the representations of refugee claimants, the Cenral Government decided to revoke its previous sanction to sell the Land vide memo No, 6011/AQN/MZD/153 dated 23-11-1963. The Administrator, T. D. A., therefore, issued instructions to the Colonization Officer, Bhakkar to stop utilization of the land for the projects of the re D. A. And to reserve the remaining area comprising 12.443 acre- for the satisfaction or refugees' claims ride his letter No, Thal/LHR/AS/4294-69/1819-RI, dated 4/12th of May 1970.
3. The Lot No, 23 measuring 15 acres was included in 48,871 acres of land which was initially sold by the Central Government to the Thal Development Authority. It was auctioned by the T. D. A. And purchased by All Mohammad petitioner and his brother Khadim Hussain against a sum of Rs, 24,000 on 13-9-1961. They paid Rs, 65,000 as earnest money and thereafter one more instalment on 30-5-1964, but subsequently defaulted in the payment of the remaining instalments.
Consequently, the Colonization Officer, Bhakkar, after serving a notice upon them under section 30 of the Thal Development Act, 1949, resumed the lot by his order dated 29-5-1967. Subsequently this lot was confirmed in the name of Abdul Jabber etc. Respondents on 9-9-i970 against their verified claim forms in accordance with the instructions dated 12-5-1970 issued by the Administrator T. D. A.
4. About six years after resumption of the lot the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Multan Division who by his order dated 24-12-1973 revcraed the order dated 29-5- 1967 of the Colonization Officer, Bhakkar and restored the lot in dispute to the petitioner and his brother on the condition that they would pay the entire outstanding amount within a month from the date of the order failing which it would stand automatically resumed. The petitioner did not avail himself of this opportunity and instead, after wasting more than a year, again approached the Commissioner, concealing the previous order dated 24-12-1973, with the request that he might be allowed to deposit the outstanding amount in easy instalments. The Commissioner accordingly by his order dated 13-5.1975 allowed him to deposit 14th of the outstanding amount before 12-6- 1975 which he did. Being aggrieved the respondents preferred an appeal against this order before the Single Member who accepted the same on 30-10-1975, with the following observations :- "The lots were cancelled in 1967 for non-payment of price. The respondents lodged a time barred appeal before the Commissioner in which the appellants who had, in the meantime, been allotted the land in dispute were not made a party. The Commissioner, therefore, condemned the appellants unheard which is opposed to natural justice and equity. The state representative admitted that the T. D. A. Bad allotted more land than its share. In view of thes circumstances, I find that when the Commissioner passed the order dated 20-5-1975 in favour of the respondents, the land had been allotted to the appellants as refugee claimants and was, therefore, not available for restoration. His order is, therefore, bad in law and is hereby set aside."
' The present petition has been filed against this order before the Full Board by invoking its revisional jurisdiction under section 7(2) of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the land in dispute was included in a joint khata shared by the T. D. A. And the evacuee owners, it could not be given to the respondents in adjustment without first partitioning the joint khata and, therefore, the learned Single Member was not right in holding that when the Commissioner passed the impugned orders, the land had already been allotted to the respondents as refuge claimants and was not available for restoration. We do not find any force in the argument inasmuch as according to the Adjustment Scheme in Thai it is only the share of Amnia: and not any specified khasra numbers that are sold or allotted to the purchasers or local owners. In the event of resumption or confiscation that portion reverts to the common pool and tom Identity. A perusal of the record will show that the T. D. A. Had total, share of 386 acres out of a total area of 5797 asses in Village Same Thal Kalan of which Chak No, 325 7. D. A. Was calved out. The I. D. A. Had already utilised an area of 2247 acres 6 kanals and 14 mark's, much more than Its actual share, through various Schemes in Chak No, 325 T. D. A. The remaining land therefore belonged to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the T. D. A. Had no land left to be given to the petitioner. As regards the respondents it would appear from the record that the land measuring 1604 kanals was allotted to thorn as refugee claimants by the Rehabilitation Authorities and confirmed in Chak No, 325 T. D. A. Against vanda No,
154. The possession was also delivered to them and since 1973 they have been shown in the entries of khara girdawart as allottees of the 'and. It is thus clear when the Commissioner passed his orders dated 24-12.1973 and 13-5-1973, the land in dispute had already been allotted to the respondent and was not available for restoration nor there was any land left with T.D.A. Which could be given to the petitioners even as alternative land. The mistake thus committed by the Commissioner was such incurla as to vitiate both his orders dated 24-12-1972 and 13-54975.
6. Apart from that, the above referred orders also suffer from want o jurisdiction and are, therefore, unsustainable. They were passed by the Commissioner in purported exercise of his powers under the That Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973, when the petitioner had already forfeited his remedy by way of appeal or revision and the respondents acquired vested rights in the land under the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules.
1960. In this connection it is noteworthy that the land in dispute was resumed by the Colonization Officer on account of defaulted payment of instalments, in duo process of law, by his order dated 29-5-1967. This order was never challenged in appeal cr revision before the Chairman of the Authority or the Board of Revenue as provided under the Teal Development Authority (Colonization)
(Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1960. Which were then in force and therefore it had attained finality.
The Commissioner had no powers under the aforesaid rules to hear appeal from the order of the Colonization Officer and it was only in the year t971 that he was delegated powers to restore lot vide Notification No, Thal/HVC/XVII-35/1436.36, dated 24-9-1971 and subsequently also to hear appeal from the orders of the Colonization officer under the T. D. A. (Colonisation) (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1973, published under Notification No, 4612-77/369, dated 25-4-1973. There is no doubt that the Commissioner could exercise these powers in such cases as were pending before him but it was not open to him to invoke such powers retrospectively in the matters which had already been closed and completed so as to impair any existing right or obligation acquired under the old Rules of 1960. Since the orders of the Commissioner restoring the disputed lot to the petitioners tend to affect the bygone transaction prejudicially they cannot be considered to have been passed within his lawful authority and are therefore void and of no legal effect. Besides, the Commissioner was not competent to review the order dated 24.12-1973 not passed by himself in the absence of previous sanction of the Board of Revenue required under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
7. Another question that fell for consideration was as to whether it was comptent to the Commissioner to admit appeal from an order passed by the Colonization officer as far hack as 29- 5-1967, which was barred by time by about six years, and to decide the same on merits without touching the question of limitation which he was bound to decide in view of the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Syed Azmat All v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore (1), and also whether there was any provision of law under which the delay in filing these appeals could be condoned. The limitation for such cases has been prescribed under the That Development Authority (Colonization) ( Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973 issued under section 50 of the Thal Development Act, 1949. Rule 5 of these rules provides that the period of limitation for an appeal shall by sixty days where the appeal lies to the Commissioner or ninety days where it lies to the Board of Revenue. Rule 7 provides that subject to the provisions of these rules, the procedure laid down in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 may be followed in the proceedings under these rules. Section 167 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 makes the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 applicable to appeals, reviews, or revisions, in the matter of computation of the period of limitation. This means that Part 111 of the Limitation Act which deals with computation of period of limitation shall apply to appeals under the Thal Development (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision)
Rules, 1973. Part III, however, does not contain section 5 under which the period of limitation can be extended in certain cases. Apart from that section 29 of the Limitation Act which prescribes as to what portion of the Act shall apply to local and special laws in the absence of any directions in those laws themselves also does not extend the application of section 5 to the proceedings and r these laws. It, therefore follows that section 5 is not applicable to E computation of a period for appeals under the Land Revenue Act and, a fortiori, under the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rule,, 1973. The same view has been taken in Nawab Sir Metter Shah v. Lt Dewan Sahib (2). Thus in the instant case the benefit of section 5 could not be taken for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner nor any section of Part 111 of the Limitation Act could be invoked in and for that purpose. Therefore the appeals before the Commissioner which were filed after about six year of the imp 'gned orders without showing any ground on which exception from limitation could be claimed were not entertainable and should have been dismissed on the short ground of limitation.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the order of the Commissioner dated 13-5-1975 was not expressly reversed by the learned Single Member in his order dated 30-10-1975 and therefore it may be considered to be stir operative and effectual. This is not correct. These were three separate orders parsed by he Commissioner on 9-9-1974, 20-5-1975 and 13-5-1975 which were impugned in a appeal before the learned Member and were d posed of by a single order dated 30.5-1975. All these orders were fully discussed in the impugned order dared 30-10- 1975 and, therefore, the operative part thereof apply equally to all the said orders including the order dated 13-5-1975. In any case the omission is immaterial and merits no consideration.
9. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the sale of land in dispute in favour of the petitioner was held to be void, he was entitled to the refund of purchase money deposited by him. Since this point was not fully argued before us, the learned counsel was advised to make. If he so wished, a separate application in this behalf before the competent authority.
(1)PLD 1964 SC260 (2) (1944) 23 L L D
10. In the result we hold that the land in dispute had been rightly confirmed in the names of the respondents as refugee claimants and was not available for restoration when the orders dated 24- 12-1973 and 13-5-1975. Were passed by the Commissioner. These orders were given per incuriam and suffered from want of jurisdiction and therefore void and of no legal effect. The appeals were also badly barred by time and therefore it was not competent to the Commissioner to have entertained them and decide them on merits without first getting over the bar of limitation. In view of these circumstances the revision petition fails a and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.