Brief facts of the case are that Head Clerk Colony in his note, dated 28th February, 1994 stated as under:-- "Khair Din son of Buddha resident of Chak No.23/R.B. Was allotted State land comprising Square No.44, Killa Nos. l to 4, 5/1, 5/2, 6, 7/1, 7/2, 8, 9, 10, .11-min and 12 measuring 100 Kanals and 18 Marlas under the 15 years' lease scheme on 31-5-1971. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura vide his order dated 29-9-1991 granted proprietary rights of 100 Kanals of land for a consideration of Rs.52,900. The allottee has paid price of the land and the file has now been sent to this office for execution of sale-deed. A perusal of the register Charagah maintained by this office reveals that the land in question is classified as Charagah Baqaya, proprietary rights or which cannot be granted, as contemplated in Board of Revenue Letter No.6597-80/2550-CKI, dated 5-9-1981. As per para. No.12(c) of the Notification dated 3-9-1979 if at any time it is found that the grantee has acquired proprietary rights in any land for which he was not eligible to acquire such rights for any reason whatsoever, the Collector may after giving such grantee a reasonable opportunity of show cause resume the land. Moreover, it has been clarified by the Board of Revenue vide their Letter No.200-94/299-CV, dated 22nd February, 1994 that simple word i.e. 'Collector' existing in the scheme etc. Would mean the Assistant Commissioner/E.A.C. Etc. Who is empowered under the Colony Act, 1912."
With these submissions, it was recommended that AssistanLl Commissioner/Collector, Sub- Division, Sheikhupura may be asked to proceed in accordance with the law for resumption of the land in question. D.C./Collector agreed with the recommendations vide his order, dated 1st March, 1994 by merely-endorsing yes over his signatures and seal. This order was challenged by Hashmat Bibi, etc., the present petitioners. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division vide his order, dated 24th October, 1994 dismissed the appeal with the following observation:-- "The counsel has not been able to establish before me that the land in question was not ' Chiragah Baqaya', hence I find no reason to disagree with the conclusion of District Collector, Sheikhupura arrived at after consultation of record. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned order, dated 1-3-1994 upheld."
2. The present revision petition has been filed against this order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 24th October, 1994.
3. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was provided in the 15 years' temporary cultivation lease scheme that Chiragah arid land falling within prohibited belt will not be leased out for the said scheme. In the Revenue Record, i.e. Jamabandi, the subject land leased out to Kher Din was shown as Baqaya Sarkar.
3. It is stated by Kazam Awan, E.A.C.(R.) that the schedule prepared in pursuance of the directions of the Board of Revenue in respect of Chiragah land by D.C./Collector in the year 1960 was not circulated to the revenue field establishment for incorporation in the Revenue Record. According to the report of D.C./Collector, received today, the said schedule has now been circulated to the revenue field staff for incorporation in the Revenue Record.
4. The case of the petitioners as advanced by their learned counsel is that the land leased out to Kher Din was Baqaya Sarkar. The schedule prepared which was not implemented in the Revenue Record has no legal sanctity. It cannot be made basis for refusing to execute the conveyance deed in furtherance of the order, dated' 29th June, 1991 of A.C./Collector whereby the lessee was allowed to purchase proprietary rights of the subject
5. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. The order of D.C./Collector whereby he approved recommendations of Head Clerk, Colony for action under para. 12(c) of the Notification, dated 3rd September, 1979 was a permission for A.C./Collector, Saddar Sub-Division to scrutinize the validity of allotment of Kher Din in the context of para. 12(c) of the Notification (ibid). It is not a speaking order. In any case, the order, dated 29th June, 1991 could be reviewed by Collector only after obtaining permission of the Commissioner as provided in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
D.C./Collector lacked jurisdiction to require A.C./Collector to review an order of his predecessor. In this view of the matter, Additional Commissioner while dismissing the appeal of the present petitioners erred in law by not appreciating the import of subsection (2)(a)(ii) of section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 The provisions of executive instructions cannot overrule the provisions of a substantive law. 1, therefore, find that the order of D.C./Collector was not liable to be upheld.
6. The important question is the legal sanction of the schedule of Charagah prepared by D.C./Collector in 1960 which was not circulated for incorporation in the Revenue Record. The case as it stands today in the context of the objection raised by the office will require fresh scrutiny by A.C./Collector after obtaining permission from Commissioner. He will look into the legal sanction of the schedule of Charagah land prepared in the year 1960 as stated above which was not implemented in the Revenue Record. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated 24th October, 1994 is not maintainable and as such is set aside.
With the above observations, the case is sent to A.C./Collector for decision afresh under the law. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.