The facts entailing the institution of this writ petition on 30-6-1998 are as under:-- Muhammad Suleman writ petitioner being a displaced person claimed to be in possession of the piece of land measuring 1 Kanal situated in Mauza Kothay Pind, Faisal Town, Lahore. He made the application for the transfer of the said plot to him before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore which was finally transferred to him under the orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in previous Writ Petition No.262-R of 1992 filed by him vide Transfer Order No.0000754 dated 11-4-1995. After the transfer of the said plot under his possession, Muhammad Suleman petitioner submitted an application on 9-8-1995 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore Cantt./respondent for entry in the Revenue Record and mutating the same in his favour. On the said application of the petitioner the ADC(G) Cantt., Lahore (respondent) through his letter dated 19-9-1997 sought re-verification of the said transfer order from the Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore who vide his letter dated 6-12-1997 verified the genuineness of the abovementioned transfer order: The petitioner approached the respondent many a times and requested him to do the needful and mutate the aforesaid plot under his .possession in his favour. It is asserted that due to mala fides the matter about the sanction of the mutation is being put off on one excuse or the other and according to the petitioner he is wandering in bewilderess as his genuine grievance is not being redressed. It is reiterated by him that the action on the part of the respondent is mala fide, illegal and is causing undue mental and physical torture to him. He has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking the issuance of writ/direction against the respondent to act in accordance with law and mutate the plot in question transferred in his favour as far back as I 1-4- 1995.n 2.The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore Cants. submitted the comments who admitted the filing of the application by the writ petitioner for sanction of the mutation, referring the matter by him to the Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and re-verification by him vide letter dated 6-12-1997. He expressed that on receipt of re- verification order dated 6-r2-1997 he directed the Tehsildar, Cann. Lahore to inspect the sire and to furnish the report which was received by him on 24-10-1998 which was being examined and thereafter the file of the petitioner shall be forwarded to the District Collector. Lahore for according the necessary permission for attestation of the mutation. He took the exception to the filing of this writ petition by expressing that adequate and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner in the revenue hierarchy before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
3.The matter remained pending before this Court for a considerable time. On 20-10-1998 I passed the order for sanction of the mutation by giving a Schedule of time The ADC(G). Cann. Lahore sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner. Lahore. On this the Deputy Commissioner. Lahore submitted his report who admitted all the facts of the writ petition. but expressed that according to the report of the Extra-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue). Lahore Muhammad Suleman petitioner was in possession of an area of 17 Marla and 152 square feet as against an area of I Kanal claimed. by him.
He contended that it was not possible for him to mutate the land to the extent of 1 Kanal. On this report of the Deputy Comibissioner, Muhammad Suleman petitioner expressed before this Court that his entitlement was on I Kanat of land while he was in possession of 17 Marl. and 152 square feet as measured by the revenue staff and conceded that to that extent of that area the mutation may be sanctioned.
4.The present position is that the mutation has been sanctioned. In this view of the matter the writ petition stands fructified and obviously, disposed of.
5.Even though this writ petition has been disposed of having fructified I would like to dispose of the controversy involved in this petition on merits as the same is that of public interest litigation and will be a source of convenience to the landownerst/owners of immovable property within all the Civil Districts in Punjab and particularly in Civil District of Lahore as during the hearing of this writ petition many persons from the public had been appearing to hear the same and the learned Advocates also watched the same and some of them brought their difficulty of this very nature to the notice of this Court verbally that their mutations are also not being sanctioned. It is a dispute wherein substantive jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector as well as the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General). Lahore Cantt. and City Lahore/Collectors has to he determined with respect to the attestation of the mutations. I would express that to enter into litigation has never been liked in our social set-up. Since this matter has come to the notice of this Constitutional Court it is the right and ripe time to examine the law on the subject in the larger interest of the citizens (members of the public) who are clamouring that they are being vexed and taxed by the public servants of the revenue hierarchy.
6.At this stage it is proper to espresss that the learned A.A.-G. intimated this Court on 5-5-1999 that the Deputy Commissioner, Lahorc is desirous to appear to bring certain facts to the notice of this Court. He was allowed and it was on 20-5-1999 that Mr. Fawad Hassan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner assisted by Mr. Khushi Muhammad. Nazir EAC(R) and Mr. Muhammad Waseem. Naib-Tehsildar appeared alongwith Syed Zulfiqar Ali Bokhari. Assistant Advocate-General who argued the matter before me bringing to my notice his overall control on his subordinate Revenue Officers in terms of section 14 of the Land Revenue Act. 1967 which according to him empowered him to distribute the business as well as withdraw and transfer the cases. About his difficulty due to the irregular and some time illegal conduct of the Revenue Officers exercising the powers of the Assistant Collectors of the First Grade and Assistant Collectors of the Second Grade working under him, being a source of inconvenience to the general public; he expressed that he would move the Board of Revenue, Punjab. Lahore for streamlining and issuing the policy about the mutations against Permanent Transfer Deeds and Transfer Orders issued by the Settlement Department. Board of Revenue. Punjab. Lahore. He handed over the copy of his office order dated 4-5-1999 restraining the Revenue Officers from sanction of mutations against PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement Department and streamlining the matter through the constitution of a Committee. He sent his Letter No.EACR/364 dated 10-6-1999 afterwards to the learned Senior Member. Board of Revenue. Punjab. Lahore and a copy of the same was produced by the learned A.A.-G. before this Court which forms part of this petition. In this letter the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore prayed to the learned Senior Member. Board of Revenue, Punjab. Lahore to nominate the Collector. Lahore to exercise powers under section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act in respect of mutations against PTDs/TOs either himself or nominate any other Revenue Officer for the purpose for the total limits of Revenue District of Lahore.
7.At this stage it is relevant to refer to this aspect of the matter that there are watertight compartments of jurisdiction of Revalue Officers posted at different positions. Section 7 of the Land Revenue Act provides the classes of Revenue Officers and the same is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:-- Section 7. Classes of Revenue Officers...(1) There shall be the following classes of Revenue Officers.
(a)the Board of Revenue; (b)the Commissioner; (c)the Collector; (d)the Assistant Collector of the first grade.
(e)the Assistant Collector of the second grade.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner of the District or the officer performing for the time being functions as such, shall be the Collector thereof.
8.According to section 4 containing different definitions "Revenue Court' means a Court constituted as such under the law relating to tenancy as in force for the time being (subsection (22)) and "Revenue Officer" means a Revenue Officer having authority under the Land Revenue Act. 1967 to discharge We functions of a Revenue Officer (subsection (23)).
9.For the proper appreciation of the dispute in hand sections 8 to 18 are reproduced as under:- Section 8. Appointment of Commissioners and Collectors.--For each Division there shall be a Commissioner, and in each District there shall be a Collector, who shall be appointed by Government. and who shall exercise throughout the Division or District as the cake may be, all the powers, and discharge all the duties, of the Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be. under thii Act.
Section 9. Additional Commissioners and Additional Collectors.--Government may appoint in any Division an Additional Commissioner or in any District an Additional Collector, who shall exercise throughout the Division or District concerned all or any of the powers and discharge all or any of the duties conferred or imposed on a Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be. by or under this Act, subject to the general supervision and control of the Commissioner of the Division in the case of Additional Commissioner, and the Collector of the District in the case of Additional Collector.
Section 10. Assistant Collectors.--(1) Government may appoint to each District as many Assistant Collectors of the first and second grade as it may deem expedient.
(2)Government may place the revenue administration of a Sub-Division in a District in the charge of any Assistant Collector of the first grade appointed to that District and confer all or any of the powers of the Collector on such officer under subsection (I) of section 16.
(3)If any of the powers of a Collector, under this Act are conferred on an Assistant Collector they shall be exercised by him subject to the control of the Collector.
Section 11. Tahsildars, etc.--The Chief Officer entrtuted with the local revenue administration of a Tehsil shall be called the Tahsildar (which also includes a Mukhtiarkar), who shall exercise such powers and discharge such dunes of an Assistant Collector as may be expressly conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act.
Section 12. Certain appointments to be notified --The appointment of all officers under this Chapter shall be by notification.
Section 13. Superintendence and control of Revenue Officers.--(I) The Board of Revenue shall be subject to the control of Government.
(2)The general superintendence and control over all other Revenue Officers shall be vested in, and all such Officers shall be subordinate to, the Board of Revenue.
(3)Subject to the general control of the Board of Revenue, a Commissioner shall control all other Revenue Officers in his Division.
(4)Subject as aforesaid and to the control of the Commissioner, a Collector shall control all other Revenue Officers in his District.
Section 14. power to Distribute business and withdraw and transfer cases.--(1) The Board of Revenue may. be written order distribute, in such manner as may be deemed fit, any business cognizable by any Revenue Officer under its control, and, by like order, withdraw any case pending before any such Officer.
(2) The powers exercisable by the Board of Revenue under subsection (I) may, by like order, and in like manner, be exercised by a Commissioner or Collector in respect of any business cognizable.by, or any case penning tretore other Revenue ()MCC'S under trim respective control.
(3)Where a case is withdrawn by the Board of Revenue under subsection (I), the Board may dispose of it itself, or, by written order, refer it for disposal to any Revenue Officer and where a case is withdrawn by a Commissioner or Collector, under subsection (2), the Commissioner or Collector, as the case may 'be, may dispose of it himself, or by like order, refer it to any other Revenue Officer under his control.
(4)No Order under this section shall empower any Revenue Officer to exercise any powers or deal with any business which he would not he competent to exercise or deal with within the local limits of his own jurisdiction.
Section 15. Combination of officers.--It shall be lawful for Government to appoint one and the same person, being otherwise competent according to law, to any two or more of the Offices provided for in this Chapter.
Section 16. Conferment of Powers of Revenue Officers.--( l) Government may, by notification, confer on any person all or any of the powers of a Commissioner or Collector under this Act, and may, in like manner, withdraw such powers.
(2)The Board of Revenue may, by notification, confer on any person all or any of the powers of an Assistant Collector under this Act, and may, in like manner, withdraw such powers.
(3)A person on whom powers are conferred under this section shall exercise those powers within such local limits, and in such classes of cases as Government or the Board of Revenue as the case may be. may direct and, except as otherwise so directed, such person shall, for all purposes connected with the exercise thereof, be deemed to be the Commissioner, Collector or Assistant Collector, as the case may be.
Section 17. Functions of Revenue Officers.--Except where the class of Revenue Officers by whom any function is to be performed is specified in this Act, the Board of Revenue may, by notification. determine the functions to be performed under this Act by any class of Revenue Officers.
Section 18. Retention of powers by Revenue Officers on transfer.--When a Revenue Officer of any class who has. under the provisions of this Act, any powers to be exercised in any local area, is transferred from that local area to another as a Revenue Officer of inc same or a signer class, he shall continue to exercise those powers in that other local area unless Government or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, otherwise directs or has directed.
10. Without prejudice, at this stage, it can safely be expressed that keeping in view the water-tight compartments of jurisdiction if any Revenue Officer starts working/modelling/interfering according to his own whims or desire in the working of any other Officer competent in the matter and their actions are approved, I must record and express that there would be administrative chaos in the society leading towards judicial anarchy in the revenue hierarchy which is not the intention of law and keeping in view this perspective of the matter the dispute in hand is being settled for the betterment and the convenience of the affected citizens.
I I Letter No.2608-93/298/01-R(1). dated 20-1-1994 issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/Collector, Lahore Cann. and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/Collector,. Lahore City was also submitted which is reproduced as under -- 'Phone No.353319.No.2608-931298/OIR(I)
Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore. dated the 20th January. 1994.
From The Board of Revenue. Punjab.
To.
1. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore.
2.The Additional Deputy Commissioner(Gen.)/Collector. Lahore Cantt.
3.The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Gen.)/Collector. Lahore City.
Subject: VERIFICATION OF TRANSFER DOCUMENTS--CLARIFICATION THEREOF.
According to the previous practice the Transfer Documents were placed before the Verification Committee constituted for the purpose and after proper verification letters were issued by Secretary (SR) to the concerned ADC(G) at Lahore with an endorsement to Tehsildar concerned, after re-verification of the validity of these letters from the offices of Secretary (S&R), at personal level.
2.In a meeting held in the office of learned MBRO-111)/CSC which was attended by Deputy Commissioner, Lahore and ADC(G), Cantt. it was decided and announced that the role of the verification committee would be restricted to the issuance of certified copies of the original documents available on record.
3.Some confusion is still prevailing in the field offices at Lahore that the verification and re- verification letters would be issued from the Verification Committee at Board of Revenue level. This is clarified that no verification or re-verification letter is being issued nor will be issued to the field formations and only certified copies of the original documents available on record are being issued. The revenue field officers may enter the mutation on the certified copies after their personal satisfaction and discretion. This office will be more than ready for any personal verification of certified copies/records for the facility of the field officers for the purpose of mutation.
(Sd.)
Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation/ Chairman. Verification Committee. Board of Revenue.
Punjab.
No.260$-93/299/OIR(l) A copy is forwarded to:-- 1All Deputy Commissioners in the Punjab; (except D.C.. Lahore).
2. All Additional Deputy Commissioners(Gen.)/DSCs in the Punjab (except Lahore City and Cam.) for information and similar further action.
(Sd.)
Secretary, Settlement and Rehabilitation/ Chairman. Verification Committee, Board of Revenue.
Punjab.'
12. Order dated 4-5-1999 passed by Mr. Fawad Hassan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore District with respect to the appointment of Dr. Pervez Ahmad Khan, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Headquarters: Lahore to exercise powers of Revenue Officer in terms of section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the attestation of mutations against the PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement Department for whole of the District of Lahore was also submitted which is reproduced as under:--
In the wake of incident of burning of Revenue Record during riots on 12-1-1998, numerous complaints were received regarding presentation of bogus PTDs/TOs to the revenue field staff for mutation in the Revenue Record. In order to protect the interest of the State and to avert bogus entries in the Revenue Record, all Circle Revenue Officers in the district were restrained from sanction of mutations against PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement Department. Subsequently a Committee was also constituted vide Order NO.PA/26284, dated 7-12-1998 for the verification of such cases with the following composition: ---- (i). Additional Deputy Commissioner(G) HQs., Lahore
(ii) Extra-Assistant Commissioner(Revenue), Lahore.
(iii) Revenue Officer concerned.
2.In partial modification of the above order dated 7-12-1998 and in exercise of powers vested under section 14(2) and (3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, I Fawad Hasan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore District do hereby appoint Dr. Pervez Ahmad Khan, Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) Headquarter, Lahore to exercise powers of Revenue Officer, in terms of section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act for the attestation of mutations against the PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement Department for the whole district. He will be assisted by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, and Concerned Circle Revenue Officer.
3. This order shall supersede all previous instructions issued on the subject so far.
(Sd.)
Fawad Hasan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Lahore District Endst. No.EAC(R)/10260, dated 4-5-1999. , Copy forwarded for information and further necessary action to the:----
1. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore.
3. Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) HQs, City and Cantt.
4. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore.
5. Tehsildars City and Cantt., Lahore.
6. All Circle Revenue Officers in the district.
(Sd.)
Fawad Hasan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/ Collectors, Lahore District.
13. With respect to the conferment of powers of Collector upon the Assistant Commissioners in Punjab except Assistant Commissioners of Sub --Divisions in Lahore District wherein the powers of Collectors have been conferred on Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore City and Lahore Cantonment; Notification No. 6393-91/22185-E (F)-III, dated 1-7-1991 was issued and the same is reproduced as under being relevant thereof :- "Notification No.6399-91/22185-E(F)III, dated the Ist duly, 1991.---In exercise of the powers conferred under subsection (1) of section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 (W.F. Act XVII of 1967) and in super session of Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department's Notification No.3773-82/1908 E(F)III and No.3773--82/1910-E(F) III, dated 30-4-1982 and No.1590-89/1071-LR.IV, dated 18-6-1989, the Government of the Punjab is phased to confer all the powers of Collector under the said Act upon (a) all the Assistant Commissioners in the Punjab except Assistant Commissioners of sub- Divisions in Lahore District and (b) Additional Deputy Commissioners (General), Lahore City and Lahore Cantonment to be exercised within the area of their respective jurisdiction, subject to the general superintendgnce and control of the District Collectors concerned except the following cases which will, however, continue to be taken cognizance by District Collector:-- (i)Appeal against the orders of Assistant Collector Ist Grade in cases of partition;
(ii) Correction in revenue records;
(iii) Sanction for review of mutations;
(iv) Suspension and remission of Land Revenue;
(v) Creation of demand of Land Revenue;
(vi) Appointment or removal of Headmen (Lambardars); and
(vii) Allocation of Revenue Circles among Tehsildars and Naib--Tehsildars.
By Order of the Governor of Punjab Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department.
No.6399-91 /22985-E(F)III.
A copy is forwarded for the information and necessary action to:--
1. All the Commissioners of Divisions in the Punjab.
2. All the Additional Commissioners (Rev.) in the Punjab.
3. Secretary (Settlements), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
4. Director Land Records, Punjab, Lahore.
5. Director Punjab Revenue Academy, 161-C; PECO Road, Township, Lahore. .
6. All the Deputy Commissioners in the Punjab.
7. Settlement Officers, D.G. Khan and Rajanpur.
8. The Managing Director, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur.
9. All the Assistant Commissioners in the Punjab.
10. The Political Assistants, D.G. Khan, Rajanpur; and
11. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore City and Lahore Cantt.
12. Registrar, Board of Revenue, Punjab.
13. Librarian, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
14. Private Secretary to the Minister for Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
(Sd.)
Additional Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department.
14. During the proceedings it was brought to the notice of this Court that there are many matters pending before the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Lahore wherein the mutations have not been sanctioned and that the matters are first being processed with by Mr. Khushi Muhammad Nazir, Extra-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and it is only on his recommendation that the mutations pertaining to PTDs/TOs are being sanctioned.
15. The dispute brought before this Court is as to who is competent to sanction the mutations and as to whether the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector as well as the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore Cantt. and Lahore City and the Assistant Commissioners posted in other Districts of the Province of the Punjab can interfere in the working of other Revenue Officers commonly designated as Assistant Collectors Grade-I and Assistant Collectors Grade-II i.e. Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars by restraining them from, sanctioning the mutations without their permission or taking up the matters at their own and in violation of the statutory law incorporated in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and in the absence of any Notifications of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
16. The case of the petitioner and obviously other affected persons is that the matter is to be taken up under section 42(6) (10) of the Land Revenue Act and that on the basis of verification or re- verification of the P.T.Ds. and Transfer Orders no clog can be put on the powers of the Revenue Officers in terms of section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 even though the District Collector/Sub-Divisional Collectors have the supervisory control. However, the stand of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore is that under his supervisory jurisdiction he can interfere in the working of the- Revenue Officers under his administrative control to perform the duty of sanction of mutation under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act and that he can appoint/nominate any other person than the Assistant Collector Grade-I/Assistant Collector Grade-II for attesting the mutations. In this regard order dated 4-5-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore District was referred to.
17. This is the proper stage to reproduce as under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as the controversy in hand revolves around and is to be settled in the light of the same:---- Section. 42--MAKING OF THAT -PART OF PERIODICAL RECORDS WHICH RELATES' TO LAND-- OWNERS.
(1) Any person acquiring by inheritances, purchase, mortgages, gift, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a landowner, or a tenant for a fixed term exceeding one year, shall, within three months from the date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of right to the Patwari of estate, who shall--
(a) record such report in the Roznamcha to be maintained in the prescribed manner;
(b) furnish a copy of the report so recorded, free of cost, to the person making the report; and
(e) send a copy of the report, within a week of its receipt by him, to the Union -Committee, Town Committee or Union Council within which the estate is situated.
(2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor, or is otherwise unable to report, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the Patwari.
(3) The Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under subsection
(1) or subsection (2), and shall also make an entry in the Roznamcha and in the register of mutations respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and of which report should have been made to him under either or those subsections and has not been so made.
(4) The report made to the Patwari under subsection (1) or sub--section (2) or recorded by him under subsection (3) shall be displayed in such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) If the Patwari fails to record or to display a report made to him under subsection (1) or subsection (2); the person making the report may make the report, in writing, to the Revenue Officer concerned and the Chairman of the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council in which the estate is situated, by registered post acknowledgement due and the Revenue Officer shall thereupon cause such report to be entered in the register of mutations.
(6) A Revenue Officer shall, from time to time, inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing subsections, report should have been made to the Patwari and entries made in that register, and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to any entry in the periodical record of the right acquired.
(7) Except in cases of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or by or under an order of decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under subsection
(6) in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons, preferably from Lambardars or Members of Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council concerned, whose signatures or thumb- impressions shall be obtained by the Revenue Officer on the register of mutations.
(8) An inquiry or an order under subsection (6) shall be made in the common assembly in the estate to which the mutation, which is the subject-matter of the inquiry, relates.
(9) Where a Revenue Officer makes an order under subsection (6) in regard to the acquisition of any right, an entry shall be made in the periodical record by the insertion therein of a description of the right acquired and by the omission from such record of any entry in any record previously prepared, which, by reason of the acquisition, has ceased to be correct.
(10) If within three months of the making of a report of the acquisition of a right under subsection
(1) or subsection (2), or the recording by the Patwari of an entry in the Roznamcha under subsection (3) respecting the acquisition of any right, no order is made by the Revenue Officer under subsection (6), he shall report the cause of delay to the Collector in the prescribed manner.
(11) The Revenue Officer shall, in the prescribed manner, send or cause to be sent, the gist of an order made by him under subsection (6) to the person whose right is acquired, and also to the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council in which the estate is situated. "
18. It is important to note that Mr. Fawad Hassn Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lahore is desirous that the mutations may be sanctioned by Dr. Pervez Ahmed, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Headquarters, Lahore with the help of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore and the concerned Circle Revenue Officer. He issued Office Order dated 4-5- 1999 in this regard. I would express that it is a matter essentially of law and propriety that a dispute is to be first disposed of by the Court of lowest grade. In the instant matter the Assistant Collector Grade-I/Grade-II i.e. Tehsildar (Revenue) and Naib-Tehsildar (Revenue) are the Revenue Officers within the purview of section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before whom the Patwari Halqa according to the allocation of Revenue Circles amongst them (Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars) has to place the papers for sanction of the mutation in terms of the said section 42 of the Act. The aforesaid notification dated 1-7-1991 has empowered the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner for allocation of Revenue Circles amongst Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars. A perusal of sections 14 to 17 of the Land Revenue Act reproduced above has made out that the District Collector has not been made competent to transfer whole of the work of the Revenue Officer to another Officer at high pedestal exercising the powers of Assistant Commissioner/Collector in the Province ' of the Punjab except the District of Lahore wherein the powers of Collector have been conferred upon Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), City Lahore, and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Cantt., Lahore. If the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Headquarters, Lahore is different one from the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) City, Lahore and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Cantt., Lahore, he stands eclipsed in toto and absolutely as in Notification dated I-7-1991. the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Headquarters, Lahore has not been conferred the powers of the Collector, Lahore within his specific jurisdiction. However, if he is one of the aforesaid two officers of the revenue hierarchy he cannot exercise the said power as in view of my aforesaid reasoning he cannot be allocated this power of attestation of mutations and Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore finds no place anywhere in this regard who may have been appointed for the reasons best known to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. I would again express that the concerned Circle Revenue Officer who has been allocated the relevant Revenue Circle is competent to take up the matters of the mutations who obviously can pass the order in accordance wits law by forthwith sanctioning or rejecting the mutation or by holding the inquiry and passing the appropriate order thereafter. A perusal of sub--section (10) of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 has made out that A in case the mutation is not sanctioned in terms of subsection (6) within three months of making of report of acquisition of a right, the Revenue Officer shall report the cause of delay to the Collector in the prescribed manner. This subsection (10) has clearly projected that the District Collector cannot allocate the functions of a Circle Revenue Officer to the Collector i.e. ADC(G), City Lahore and Cantt. Lahore. The class of Revenue Officer in terms of section 17 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 has been specified in section 42(10) (ibid) which shall play the practical legal role. The matters have to be taken stepwise keeping in view the provisions of sections 7, 17, 42 and 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. However, on any transfer application the matter(s) for cogent reason(s) can be transferred to other Circle Revenue Officer. Even according to the Notification dated 1-7-1991 the District Collector can make allocation of Revenue Circles among Tehsildars and Naib- Tehsildars. But all the duties of the Circle Revenue Officers cannot be allocated and this power cannot be invested to some other Revenue Officers at the-higher pedestal.
19. This is the proper stage to refer to letter dated 20-1-1994 addressed by the Board of Revenue, Punjab to all the Deputy Commissioners and other Officers of revenue hierarchy in Punjab. The Board of Revenue, Punjab has specifically expressed that the role of the Verification Committee would be restricted to the issuance of the certified copies of the original documents J available on record, that the Revenue Field Officers may enter the mutations ` on the certified copies after their personal satisfaction and discretion and that the Board of Revenue will be more than ready for any personal verification of certified copies/records for the facility of the Field Officers for the ra purposes of mutation. This letter dated 20-1-1994 has specifically made out that the certified copies of the original documents available on record shall be issued and that the Field Officers in Civil District Lahore may proceed further to sanction the mutation. This letter dated 20-1-1994 contains the mode of application of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 regarding the sanction of mutations. Even the inquiry can be conducted by the Revenue Officer at his end while deciding the dispute/matter of mutation. It is simply surprising that whole of the exercise in the matter is being carried out to improve and enhance the powers of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Cantt., Lahore and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) City, Lahore without substantive legal sanction of the relevant statutory law. An important point to be noted at this stage is that in case the powers of the Circle Revenue Officers are allowed to be exercised by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Carat, Lahore and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) City, Lahore as required and desired by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore the aggrieved party of the mutation, sanctioned or rejected by the Revenue Officer under e section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act, shall lose one right of appeal as under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 such a party can prefer an appeal before the Collector after the decision of the mutation either way by the Revenue Officer. However, if the mutation is sanctioned or rejected by the Collector he shall have to prefer the appeal before the Commissioner of the Division/Additional Commissioner (Revenue) keeping in view the allocation of powers. Due to the statutory law about the right of appeal, order of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore with respect to the matter in hand can safely be held to be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution, 1973 which proves that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. If in other Districts of the Province of the Punjab the mutations of all types including the acquisition of title on the basis of PTDs/TOs are being sanctioned by the Revenue Officers of the concerned circles, no discrimination can be allowed to take place in Civil District of Lahore on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore particularly when section 17 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is relevant as the class of Revenue Officers by whom any function is to be performed is specified therein. Under section 42 (ibid) the mutations are to be sanctioned by the Circle Revenue Officers i.e. Tahsildars and Naib---Tahsildars according to the allocation of Circles by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Collector assisted by a team.
Article 4(1) of the Constitution 1973 provides that "to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan". If a Notification has been provided to be issued under the aforesaid section 17 (ibid), that has to be followed in view of Article 4(1) of the Constitution 1973. I would express that the violation of the statutory law by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore cannot be allowed by this Court. Not only that his order is violative of statutory provisions contained under section 42(6)(10) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as the Circle Revenue Officers are not being allowed to sanction the mutations pertaining to the matters of acquisition of title through PTDs/TOs, the litigants/owners of the aforesaid type of property are also losing right of an appeal as expressed and projected above. The acquisition of title in any form provides cause of action to the persons acquiring the property and in-the aforesaid section 42, there is no specification that the mutations regarding acquisition of property through PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department shall be treated in a different manner.
Further the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue finds no mention anywhere in section 42 of the Land Revenue Act who has been empowered by the Deputy Commissioner in the matter without any valid authority keeping in view sections 14 to 17 of the Land Revenue Act. During the arguments it was brought to my notice that Mr. Khushi Muhammad Nazir Extra-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore working under the administrative Control of the Deputy Commissioner. Lahore has to give his report and thereafter the disputes about the mutations are settled i.e. the mutations are either sanctioned/attested or rejected. I wonder as to the said Extra-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore can proceed in the matter when the same has to be taken up by the Circle Revenue Officer.
20. It is proper to refer to famous maxim "`A communi obsetvantia non est recedendum" which means that "where a thing was provided to be done in a particular manner it had to be done in that manner and if not so done samewould not be lawful". It is proper to record that it is well- recognized rule of construction that where a power is given to do a certain thing in any certain way that thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance re necessarily forbidden.
21. The apprehension of Deputy Commissioner, Lahore that the Revenue Officers may not pass the orders detrimental to the interest :of the State on extraneous considerations need not be given the weight as he has to show the skill of his own control over his subordinates so as to work in accordance with law, honestly and diligently. The expression of non---confidence of general nature in the working of the Circle Revenue Officers can neither be appreciated nor allowed or approved. If this idea is given the weight then one fine morning another officer sitting at the higher pedestal of the revenue hierarchy may deprive the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector of his powers on the basis of the expression of no confidence of the aforesaid type. The classes of Revenue Officers are mentioned in section 7 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and all of them have to work within their own parameters in view of the statutory Laws/Rules/Notifications. The Circle Revenue Officer must be keeping quiet and silent being helpless as the subordinates of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore as well as Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) City, Lahore/Cantt., Lahore whose Annual Confidential Reports have to be written by them. There is the common saying that "a boss may not be always right, but a boss is always a boss". What more can be expressed in this regard? There is .no need to pass such orders which are without jurisdiction and do not form part of the statutory laws. The people face the inconvenience and the difficulties and it would not be out of place to express that the people of civil (Revenue) District Lahore have already faced much of the inconvenience due to the passing and operation of the order under analysis and it is hoped that the same would be redressed and mitigated in future.
22. It is proper to express that section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 deals with the procedure for making that part of periodical record which relates to the landowners in the Province of the Punjab.
According to subsection (6) of the said section 42 the mutation of inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or acquisition of any right otherwise is sanctioned by the Revenue Officer after the entry is made by the Patwari; verified by the Halqa Qanungo and placed before the Tehsildar or the Naib-Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade-I or Assistant Collector Grade II who can sanction or reject the mutation according to the allocation of revenue circles amongst them by the District Collector as mentioned in the aforesaid reproduced Notification dated 1-7-1991. If any interested person is aggrieved by the order of the sanction or rejection of a mutation an appeal is competent under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the Collector when the order is made by the Assistant Collector of either Grade. According to the aforesaid Notification dated 1-7-1991 read with section 161 of the Lanai Revenue Act. 1967 the appeal is maintainable before the Assistant Commissioner (in Lahore ADC(G) City, Lahore/Cantt., Lahore) exercising the powers of Collector and not before the District Collector. The appeal is maintainable before the Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector and the appeal is preferred before the Board of Revenue only on a point of law when the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner. It would be proper to repeat that a careful perusal of section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with the aforesaid Notification dated 1-7-1991 has made out that the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner stands eclipsed therefrom. It would be proper to record the passing remark that the vires of a mutation sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Grade-I/Grade II (Tehsildar/Naib-Tehsildar) cannot be examined and analysed by the District Collector of any district in the Province of the Punjab. Rather he is not competent to entertain any appeal or even any miscellaneous application in the light of the aforesaid Notification dated 1-7-1991. In this regard reliance is placed on Nazar Muhammad v.
Deputy Commissioner, Bhakkar 1999 Law Notes Lahore 209, of which I am the author. The nature of the cases of which District Collector can take cognizance have been enumerated there in the said Notification dated 1-7-1991 who can proceed on the judicial side and can also pass the orders on the administrative side thereof. Under the aforesaid Notification dated 1-7-1991 the Deputy Commissioner can take cognizance of an appeal against the orders of Assistant Collector 1st Grade in cases of partition. I would express that the law on the subject referred to above and some of which has been reproduced has made out that the District Collector and the Collector cannot control the Circle Revenue Officers so as to assume their judicial role. This impression stands shattered in view of the very issuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 1-7-1991 whereby the arrangement has been made about the conferment of powers of Collector on the Assistant Commissioners in the Province of the Punjab excluding the Civil District of Lahore wherein the powers of Collector have been vested in the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) City, Lahore and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Cantt., Lahore. I would hold that about the exercise of powers of District Collector the water-tight compartment of jurisdiction have been established/created by specifically enumerating his domain in the revenue hierarchy.
23. With all the regards to Mr. Fawad Hassan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lahore perhaps he is under the impression that he has the supervisory jurisdiction upon his subordinates in the District in their judicial working powers as well as by taking up and transferring of the matters of sanction of mutations to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) City, Lahore and Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Cantt., Lahore in toto. I would express that a District Head of every department has been empowered to control and supervise the working of his subordinates. It is on this aspect of matter that he has to write the Annual Confidential Reports of his subordinates wherein he has to assess their general working. However, the impression of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lahore is violative of good governance which can materialize if the law of the land is respected by the civil servants. No doubt he is the representative- of the State. However, he cannot be allowed to project his powers and authority in this illegal and unauthorised manner. The important point to be kept in mind is that the power and authority to set the law in motion is linked with the substantive and procedural jurisdiction. He cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of any other officer keeping in view the water-tight compartments of jurisdiction enumerated in sections 7, 17, 42 and 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
The jurisdiction of one Subordinate Officer cannot be exercised by the I Officer of the same department posted at the high pedestal unless provided by the statute which is lacking in the instant matter.
24. No doubt this writ petition has been filed against the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Cantt., Lahore, yet the dispute is based on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore making the arrangement for sanction of mutations pertaining to the property acquired through PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department empowering the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Headquarter Lahore to the exclusion of the Circle Revenue Officers practically. As such the vires of the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Lahore have been dissected and analysed.
25. 1 deem it proper to refer to the plight of the writ petitioner. He made the application before the ADC(G) Cantt. Lahore on 9-8-1995 for sanction of mutation which remained pending. The letter was sent on 19-9-1997 to the Secretary (S&R). Board of Revenue, Punjab. Lahore for verification of the title of the petitioner and the same was verified vide letter dated 6-12-1997, Thereafter, the matter was referred to Tehsildar (Revenue J Officer) for inquiry who submitted .the report in favour of the petitioner. r Even then the ADC(G) Cantt.. Lahore sent the papers to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore seeking permission for sanction of the mutation. The 'substantive and procedural law incorporated in the Land Revenue Act, 1967 does not provide to face such an ordeal by the writ petitioner or any other citizen having the rights thereof.
26. The 'contention .raised by the ADC(G) Cantt., Lahore respondent that the writ petition could not be filed as efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner in the revenue hierarchy need not be given the weight. In this regard suffice it to express that against the order on the administrative side passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore no remedy has been provided in the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Further denial of the right of the petitioner and refusal to sanction the mutation by keeping the matter pending for about three years had conferred the right on the petitioner to invoke the help of this Constitutional Court through the filing of this writ petition. I would express that : provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 confer very wide powers on High Court for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights. It would be proper to express that Article 199 of the Constitution provides remedy for the infringement of fundamental and legal rights of the persons.
However, the condition precedent to the granting of any relief under the said Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 depends on existing of fundamental and legal right of a person and of infringement of such right. Further, the right which is the foundation of Article 199 of the Constitution is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right recognized by law. A person could be said to be aggrieved when a person was denied a legal right by some one who had legal duty to perform relating to that right which in this case are the ADC(G) Cantt., Lahore and the Deputy Commissioner. Lahore. Hence this writ petition is maintainable.
27. Consequently it can safely be held that the mutations are to be sanctioned by the Circle Revenue Officers under section 42 of the Land . Revenue Act, 1967 and that the office order dated 4- 5-1999 passed by Mr. Fawad Hassan Fawad, Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore District appointing Dr. Pervez Ahmad, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) Headquarter, Lahore to exercise the power of Revenue Officer in terms of section 42(6) of the Land Revenue Act for the attestation of mutations against the PTDs/TOs issued by the Settlement Department for the District of Lahore with the help of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector. Lahore and concerned Circle Revenue Officer is without jurisdiction. without authority. illegal and coram non judice.
28. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn from the aforesaid analysis of the matter and the discussion is that the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lahore is not competent to deviate from the statutory provisions of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. It is proper to express that whole of the dispute has been settled keeping in view the convenience of the other citizens/landowners whose mutations are not being sanctioned who have to enter the portal of this Constitutional Court. They have the same type of grievance and are entitled to the same legal facility and same relief. To enter into the litigation has never been liked in our social set-up. The pendency of the litigation quite in rife is already a source of inconvenience to the public-at-large.
As such a copy of this judgment shall be sent with his covering letter by the Registrar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lahore to proceed further in accordance with law as provided under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 whereby Circle Revenue Officers have to attest the mutations and. accordingly. they shall perform the said duty.
29. In consequence the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Lahore shall send all the pending mutations to the Circle Revenue Officers within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months therefrom in terms of section 42(6)(10) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 so that the difficulty of the concerned transferees /owners stands redressed. The complaint about the working of the Patwaris was brought to the notice of this Court who shall be watched and dealt with iron hands and in this regard their transfers may be made to non-lucrative posts. Since it is a case of public interest litigation, there shall be no order as to costs.