' This purports to be a revision petition filed under rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1977 against the order dated the 17th October 1977, passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang, whereby he rejected the application of petitioner. No, 1 for exchange of land with the proprietary land of his sons Messrs Jahanzaib Khan and Humayun Khan petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 respectively.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that Jahangir Khan petitioner No, 1, who was required to surrender land under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, submitted an application to the Deputy Land Commissioner, Jhang, under subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act ibid for exchange of land with the land owned by his sons (petitioners Nos, 2 and 3) for the alleged purpose of consolidation. The Deputy Land Commissioner by his impugned order dated 17-10-1977 refused to grant permission for the exchange on the two grounds, first, that the application did not accompany by an affidavit of petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 showing their willingness to give their land in exchange to petitioners No, 1 and, secondly, there was an application accompanied by an affidavit from one Major Nazar Hussain Khan saying that he had purchased the land which the petitioner No, 1 wished to get in exchange from Jahanzaib Khan, petitioner No, 2 for a consideration of Rs, 2,72,000. Since under subsection (3) of section 4 no appeal lies in any Court or before any authority whatsoever against an order allowing or refusing to allow exchange of land, the petitioners have pressed in rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1977 which empowers certain officers of the Land Commission including Chief Land Commissioner and Additional Chief Land Commissioner to exercise suo mom revisional jurisdiction in cases specified therein. It may be mentioned that they could invoke jurisdiction of the Land Commissioner under the aforesaid rule, because the latter has also similar powers so far as the orders made by the Deputy Land Commissioner are concerned.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. All Muhammad Khokhar, Assistant Secretary (Litigation), who appeared as representative of the State at, great length.
4. At the very outset a pertinent question has been raised as to whether this petition can at all be treated as one in revision. In reply to this question the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under subsection (3) of section 4 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977, an appeal has specifically been barred against the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner regarding exchange of land but there is no bar against the revision to be filed under rule 13 of the Land Reforms Rules. According to him if the Legislature intended to bar revision then it would have used the words "no appeal or revision shall lie". Under section 21 of the same Legislation the Commission have been given power to make rules on matters relating to or connected with the presentation, hearing and determination of appeal from, an application for revision and review of orders made under the Act.
The learned counsel tried to establish that Legislature in the same enactment has referred to three forums of remedy for the person considering himself aggrieved by an order made by any officer exercising jurisdiction under the Act. In that event it cannot be inferred readily that the Legislature has made mistake or omitted to mention revision in section 4 (3). This was in fact the conscious omission. Indeed they have barred the appeal only. In support of his contention the learned counsel has pointed out that under the Civil Procedure Code appeals are barred against orders in a number of cases but revision lies under section 115 of the C. P. C. He further added that rules and instructions could not alter or override the law. If there is conflict between the instructions or the rules and law, then the law shall prevail. Omissions of the Legislature cannot be supplied by the rule-making authority. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred me to the following rulings :
(1) Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edition, page 12 (Omissions not to be lightly inferred).
(2) PLD 1967 Lab. 227, Mir Hassan v. State PLD 1969 Lah.
785.
(3) PLD 1960 Lah. 709 (Rules cannot everride Statute).
(4) PLD 1957 Lah. 228 (Comparison of para. 4 and para. 21, Land Reforms Act, 1977).
(5) PLD 1965 SC 90 (Natural justice). University of Dacca v. Zalcir Ahmad.
' In conclusion he emphasised that the revision has not been barred in the case.
5. Coming to the merits of the case the learned counsel stated that the reasons advanced by the Deputy Land Commissioner for disallowing exchange of the land are two-fold : (i) that no affidavit was filed alongwith the application, and (ii) that someone of the name of Major Nazar Hussain had filed an application showing that he had purchased the land from petitioner No, 2 which the petitioner No, 1 wanted to get in exchange. As regards the filing of the affidavit, it has been contended that the Deputy Land Commissioner erred in holding the failure to file an affidavit by the petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 as fatal to the applications for exchange. He has taken the plea that it is not substantive violation of the law but is an omission amounting to irregularity which can be remedied there and then in the course of hearing of the application by the Deputy Land Commissioner. The omission to file the affidavit was due to inadvertence or ignorance about the requirements of the Punjab Land Commission Notification issued on 16-3-1977. On the second point the learned counsel stated that there was absolutely no litigation of any kind pending between Major Nazar Hussain and any of the petitioners. Moreover Major Nazar Hussain did not produce before the Deputy Land Commissioner any document of any kind in support of his claim that the said area had been sold to him.
6. The main legal point raised in this case is that the Deputy Land Commissioner passed the impugned order without giving notice to petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 or hearing them. It is argued that this procedure was in contravention of the law. In this connection my attention was drawn to para. 2 of the Punjab Land Commission Notification No, LH-I-133/77/437-LC, dated 22-1-1977 which contains a direction to the Deputy Land Commissioners that they shall, after verification of the particulars furnished by an applicant and giving him and the member concerned of his family an opportunity of being heard dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1977.
7. An appeal or revision must be governed by some relevant statutory provision and the right to file them cannot be invoked without a recognised legal basis. Indeed subsection (3) of section 4 contemplates that no appeal shall lie in any Court against an exchange of land allowed or disallowed under subsection (2).
8. Here a question arises if the Deputy Land Commissioner, not subject to appellate or revisional jurisdiction of superior Courts will, safeguard against deviation which might deflect or prejudice the course of justice. The absence of revision against the order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner may in this case result in great hardship. But can a Court grant relief against such a stringency? It is well-established rule of interpretation that a Court of law will not be deprived from the plain meaning of the words used in a statute or deflect the explicit intention of the Legislature in order to mitigate a hardship. If no such remedy is provided the aggrieved person will have no other course to adopt except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. In that event the direction o arguments and reasoning will be quite different from the hearing of a revision. It might complicate rather than solve the issue. There is no cavil against the proposition that the jurisdiction of superior Courts cannot be taken away except by express words or necessary implications. I, therefore, entirely agree with the learned counsel that there is only a bar against appeal and not revision in this case.
9. Since the instant case has been transferred to me by the learned Chief Land Commissioner for disposal, I in the interest of justice take it up in the exercise of suo mote revisional jurisdiction under rule 13 of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1977.
10. The record produced before me by the representative of the Office of Deputy Land Commissioner is silent on the point that any notice was served on the Petitioners Nos, 2 and 3. It is thus clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the order was passed without giving notice to or hearing the Petitioners Nos, 2 and 3 which was again a fatal defect. When a statute gives a right of revision it should be understood as silently implying when it does not expressly provide that the petitioner, shall have the right to be beard. It is a principle of natural justice that no one should be dealt with to his material disadvantage or deprived of his liberty or property without having an opportunity of being heard and making his defence. It is a settled law B that principle of natural justice is to be read as part and parcel of ever enactment. Therefore the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner dated 17-10-1977 is vitiated and must be set aside.
11. In the circumstances I have no option but to accept the petition, set aside the order dated 17-10- 1977 of the Deputy Land Commissioner and remand the case to him for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Petition is disposed of accordingly.