' Those two revision petitions have been directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur dated 16-5-1977, by which he reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Babawalnagar, dated 6-1-1977 refusing permission to the sale by All Bakhsh respondent of his share in a joint tenancy, and allowed the respondent to alienate his share after payment of entire price of the land.
2. Nabi Bakhsh petitioner and his brother Ali Bakhsh respondent inherited one square of land in Chak No, 225/9-R, Tehsil Fort Abbas from their father, Hoore who was a grantee under the Abadkari Scheme. Ali Bakhsh respondent entered into an agreement to sell his share to Abdul Satter etc. And applied to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalnegar for according his consent to the proposed sale under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. By another application be also sought permission foe the payment of entire price of the land. The Collector rejected both the applications by his order dated 6-1-1977. Being aggrieved by this order the respondent filed two separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner, who accepted the same on 16-5-1977 and allowed the respondent to alienate his share after payment of entire price of the land. The present revisions are against this order.
3. The main point to be determined in these revisions arises from the argument that where the Collector passes an order withholding or granting his consent under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, he is exercising not his own power but a power which belongs exclusively to the Commissioner which has been delegated to him by the Commissioner and the exercise of such power by him as the delegate is not subject to appeal or revision before the delegator (Commissioner). This argument which has been anchored on the judicial dicta of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jalal Din v. Muhammad Rafiq (1) is of course to be accepted as conclusive and binding. A reference in this connection has also been made to a revenue decision reported as Sardar Begum v. Nishat Afza and another (2) in which a single Member of the Board of Revenue has taken a contrary view holding that an order passed by a Collector in exercise of the power given to him by a Commissioner under section 19 does not amount to an order by a Commissioner and it is, therefore, competent for a Commissioner to hear appeal against it. This decision, though it has not been expressly overruled or intentionally departed from, has in course of time come in conflict with the subsequent judicial decisions and has lost its claim, if any, to recognition as authority and is no longer a good law. That being so, the authority that now holds the field in the matter is the judicial exposition contained in the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore, all Courts in Pakistan including Revenue Courts are constitutionally bound to follow the same.
4. In view of this interpretation of law the position that emerges in' the present case is that the Collector while passing his order dated 6.1-1977 was exercising the powers of the Commissioner delegated to him under section 19 and therefore his order could not be interfered with in appeal by the Additional Commissioner. Thus the impugned order dated 16-5-1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner in appeal reversing the order of Collector was coram non justice and therefore, void and of no legal effect.
5. It has, however, been submitted that the respondent has sine acquired the proprietary rights after payment of entire price of the land and has thereby ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Colonization Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and, therefore, was fully competent alienate his share to anyone he likes. There is much force in the submission because the purchase money could be deposited even without obtaining the prior sanction of the Collector under section
19. And once the full price is, paid and other conditions are fulfilled, the proprietary rights automatically stand transferred subject to certain conditions set forth in the conveyance deed and Schedule II of the Act. Therefore, subject to observance of such conditions there would be no bar to the further transfer of these rights by the respondent, the order of the Collector to the contrary notwithstanding. With these observations both the revision petitions stand disposed of.
(1) PLD 1965 SC 261 (2) PLD 1954 Pb. (Rev.) 1