AITZAZ-UR-RASHID KHAN, MEMBER (COLONIES).- This petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, whereby he dismissed the review petition filed against his predecessor's order dated 7.9.1999 oh account of having become infructuous on his transfer from Sargodha.
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that one Pir Salah- ud-Din son of Akbar Ali Shah, Caste Syed, resident of 223/F- 72, Islamabad was allottee of Lot No. 147 measuring 1200 kanals situated in Rakh Dhingana, Tehsil Mankera, District Bhakkar under Tubewell Sinking Scheme, Ghulam Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents purchased the tenancy rights from the original allottee on 27.3.1973 and further transferred the same to the present petitioners and delivered the possession. The respondents submitted an application to the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha for transfer/alienation of tenancy rights of land measuring 800 kanals out of lot measuring 1200 kanals, under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 in favour of Raza Haider etc. The present petitioners. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6.1.1998 by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division. Their petition for restoration of application was dismissed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha vide order dated 7.9.1998 due to restriction on transfer of partial tenancy rights ordered by the Board of Revenue vide policy letter dated 2.8.1999. The present petitioners sought review of his predecessor's order dated 7.9.1998 before the learned Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 19.12.2000 on account of having become infructuous. Hence this revision petition.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Commissioner has dismissed the review petition on the main ground that he is not competent to review the order of his predecessor without prior permission of the Board of Revenue. He further contended that the Appellate Court should have sought permission from the competent authority instead of dismissing the review petition.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel the petitioners and have examined the record available on the file. The precise issue involved is whether the case for grant of permission for review filed before an Officer who has been transferred should continue to be dealt with by an officer who steps into the shoes of his predecessor, in the instant case, the former Commissioner passed an order dated 7.9.1999 rejecting the petitioner's request for partial transfer of the tenancy under orders of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, while the successor Commissioner rejected the petition on 19.12.2000 on the precise ground that the review petition filed before his predecessor against his on order had become infructuous and it could not be reviewed by him as successor Commissioner without prior permission of the Board of Revenue. I am afraid rejection of review petitions on the short ground that the Officer whose order is sought to be reviewed has been transferred is not in accordance with law. White disposing of the petition, the Commissioner should have applied his mind to the facts of the case, in cases lie was of the opinion that it was a fit case to seek review, a reference should have been made to the Board of Revenue to accord permission to review. The learned Commissioner has not applied his mind to the facts of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar for decision of the petition for review afresh on merits.