Sadiq Hussain Shah, etc. submitted an application for restitution of land under usufructuary mortgage of Feroe Shah, etc. to A.C./Collector. The land was ordered to be redeemed vide order of A.C./Collector, dated 5th February, 1989. Late Sadiq Hussain Shah submitted a petition for possession of the redeemed land. In the petition, the area and description of the land (Khasra numbers) to be redeemed were as under:- "Land measuring 2 Kanals, 13 Marlas, 1/4th share of land measuring 10 Kanals, 12 Marlas, No. Khewat and Khatauni 330/951, 950, 998, Khasra Nos.1865/426, 1866/426, 1863/426, 1864/426, situated in village Dhunni."
2. After framing of the issues, the application was allowed and mortgaged land was ordered to be redeemed. Warrant of possession, however, was issued vide order of A.C./Collector on 25th November, 1991 wherein possession of Khasra No.1863/426 was ordered to be delivered to Sadiq Hussain Shah, etc.
3. Feroze Shah, etc. submitted an application to A.C./Collector that order, dated 25th November, 1991 whereby the warrant of possession in respect of Khasra No.1863/426 was issued needed amendment by way of review since it was against the order, dated 5th of February, 1989 of A.C./Collector wherein the land as described in the application of Sadiq Hussain Shah i.e. 1/4th share out of Khasra Nos.1865/426, 1866/426, 1863/426, 1864/426 was allowed to be redeemed.
A.C./Collector heard both the parties and vide his order, dated 31st May, 1992 allowed review of the contents of the warrant of possession. Sadiq Hussain Shah, etc. filed appeal before Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division. The appeal was accepted with the following observation:- "I find that the A.C./Collector has recalled his own order, dated 5-2-1989 on the application filed by the respondents, although under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, he was not competent to do so. The possession of land to the extent of 2 Kanals and 7 Marlas had to be given to the appellant to which he was bona fide purchaser. Warrant Dakhal was rightly issued by the A.C./Collector vide his order, dated 5-2-1989 and there was no justification for him to recall his own order without jurisdiction, as the purchaser obtained the land for Sikni purposes in possession of the vendor in Khasra No.1863/426 to the extent of 2 Kanals and 7 Marlas. The possession was to be delivered according to boundaries specified in this sale-deed as is supported in PLD 1987 Lah.
537 and under Order 21, Rule 35 of the C.P.C."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners purchased mortgagee rights of 1/4th share of Khasra Nos.1865/426, 1866/426, 1863/426 and 1864/426 in village Dhunni, Tehsil Kharian. 1/4th share of these Khasra numbers measuring in total 10 Kanals and 12 Marlas comes equal to 2. Kanals, 13 Marlas. The respondents filed an application for restitution of the land on 24th April, 1988 before Sub-Division Collector who vide his order, dated 5th February, 1989 allowed restitution of the land in favour of the respondents. In accordance with the order, dated 5th February, 1989, Mutation No.5595 was attested by Revenue Officer on 21st February, 1989. At the time of issuance of warrant of possession, instead of 1/4th share of the aforesaid Khasra numbers, respondents Nos.1 and 2 were directed to be given exclusive possession of Khasra No.1863/426.
Against this warrant of possession, an application was submitted by the present petitioners to Sub- Divisional Collector who vide his order, dated 31st May, 1992, set aside the order, dated 9th December, 1991 of Tehsildar/A.C. 1st Grade and reviewed his earlier order, dated 25th November, 1991. This decision was challenged before Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who set aside the order, dated 31st May, 1992 vide his order, dated 26th November, 1992. The ground taken was that under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, A.C./Collector was not competent to recall his own order. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that orders, dated 25th November, 1991 and 9th December, 1991 of A.C./Collector and Revenue Officer respectively were procedural in nature and permission from the next higher authority for review of the said orders as prescribed in the Land Revenue Act was not relevant as held in PLD 1957 Lah. 70 and PLD 1975 SC 331. It has also been averred that against the share as incorporated in the sale- deed and also mentioned in the order dated 5th February, 1989, the respondents cannot be given specific Khasra numbers. Only share can be alienated in their favour out of the total Khata. He further contended that case of the petitioners falls under Order XXI, Rule 35, sub-Rules (1) and (2).
5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no provision under the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 for review of an order passed by the same authority. A.C./Collector was, therefore, not competent to review his order, dated 25th November, 1991 by his order, dated 31st May, 1992. The order, dated 31st May, 1992 is, therefore, bad in law. Even if the order, dated 25th of November, 1991 needed review, prior permission of the next higher authority ought to have been obtained by A.C./Collector before reviewing the order. It was reported that the petitioners had also filed a civil suit which was dismissed on 27th May, 1992. It was contended that the Revenue Authorities are not competent to interfere with the mutation based on registered sale-deed. He placed reliance on 1992 CLC 1349.
6. The petitioners in their application had sought redemption of land measuring 2 Kanals, 13 Marlas which was 1/4th share of land total measuring 10 Kanals, 12 Marlas in Khewat and Khatauni Nos.330/951, 950, 998, Khasra Nos.1865/426, 1866/426, 1863/426, 1864/426, situated in village Dhunni. A.C./Collector vide his order, dated 5th of February, 1989 had accepted their application and ordered for redemption of the land mentioned in the petition of Sadiq Hussain Shah, etc. Warrant of possession, however, issued by A.C. 1st Grade contained only Khasra No.1863/426. This warrant of possession was, therefore, obviously not in conformity with the order of A.C./Collector, dated 5th of February, 1989. The application submitted by Feroze Shah, etc. was to the effect that the land described in warrant of possession was not in line with the decision of A.C./Collector.
A.C./Collector, therefore, vide his order, dated 31st May, 1992 ordered for correction of the warrant of possession and subsequent mutation sanctioned by Revenue Officer Halqa. The substantive decision was 5th February, 1989. Subsequent directions and orders were merely passed to implement the stated A decision. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to view with sympathy the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that order, dated 25th November, 1991 and 9th December, 1991 were procedural in nature and permission from the next higher authority for review of the said orders was not required. The statement in the impugned order of Additional Commissioner that "I find that the A.C./Collector has recalled his own order, dated 5-2-1989 on the application filed by the respondents" is incorrect since the import of the order, dated 31st May, 1992 is in fact to implement correctly the order, dated 5th February, 1989 by correcting the description of the land in the warrant of possession and in the mutation order. I, therefore, find that order of Additional Commissioner is not maintainable which is accordingly set aside. Resultantly, the revision petition succeeds and order, dated 31st May, 1992 of A.C./Collector is upheld.