' Rahim Dad son of Azad Khan was the last owner of the land in question. Vide Mutation No,873 attested on 18-6-1991 his estate was mutated in favour of all the private parties hereto. Mst. Samina respondent 'No,1-A and respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed an appeal against the said mutation. The grievance made out was that in the said mutation two British wives of said Rahim Dad and his progeny from them have also given share in the estate. The learned Collector found that the marriages are in order according to Qur'anic Injunctions. He dismissed the appeal on 12-3-1992.
Now only Samina Jan respondent No,1-A filed a Revision Petition 2.0.12 of 1992. This revision petition -was heard ex parte against the petitioners and was allowed on 9-1-1994. The learned Additional Commissioner proceeded to hold that there is no document on record evidencing the marriages with the said British ladies and that thereafter they became Muslim. He proceeded to allocate 3/12 share to Mst. Samina Jan 4/12 share.To Khanum Jan the mother of Rahim Dad and 5/12 to the collateral i,e, his brothers.
2. Now the petitioners filed an application before the Additional. Commissioner praying that they were not served and ex parte judgment be set aside. On 6-8-1995 the Additional Commissioner addressed a memo. To the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab stating the facts of the case and further expressed his satisfaction that the petitioners had not been served. He also referred to the consent of the contesting respondents through their learned counsel that the petitioners had not been served and that the appeal be reheard and ex parte judgment be set aside. With these averments he sought the sanction of the said Member to review the said ex parte judgment passed by his predecessor. Now somehow or the other the said sanction was refused.
The learned Additional Commissioner vide order dated 24-10-1995 proceeded to dismiss the said application. The petitioners filed a revision (ROR 3573 of 1995). This revision was heard by a learned Member (Judicial-III) who proceeded to dismiss the same on 14-4-1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the learned respondent No, 1 has proceeded in a vacuum, He failed to take note. Of the said background of the case and proceeded to dismiss the revision in mechanical manner. Learned counsel for respondent No,1-A supports the impugned judgments of the Additional Commissioner and learned respondent No,1.
4. I have examined the available record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the contesting parties. I have already narrated the entire history of the case above. Now it is matter of record that the Additional Commissioner proceeded against the petitioners ex parte and passed the order dated 9-1-1994 which has been upheld by respondent No,1 on 14-4-1999. It is further matter of record that it was an application for setting aside of the ex parte judgment which was to be decided by the Additional Commissioner. He had expressed his satisfaction that the petitioner had not been served and had no knowledge of the said proceedings. Now instead of proceedings to set aside the said ex parte order, learned Additional Commissioner took upon himself to seek sanction of Board of Revenue for review of the order. To my mind, no review was involved. The revision was filed, heard and decided under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, by the Additional Commissioner. This Officer is appointed under section 9 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and exercises throughout the Division concerned all or any of the powers and discharges all or any of the duties conferred or imposed on a Commissioner by or under the said Act, subject to the general supervision and control of the Commissioner of the Division. To my mind, he is a Revenue Officer within the meaning of section 7 of the said Act. Now section 20 lays down that the Board of Revenue with previous 'approval of the Government may make Rules not inconsistent with this Act for regulating procedure of Revenue Officers in cases in which a procedure has not been provided for by the said Act.
5. Now I find that section 21 provides for appearance and acts by a person before the Revenue Officer. Section 22 empowers the Revenue Officer to summon the witnesses. Section 24 prescribes the mode of service of summon. Similarly mode of making proclamation is provided for. However, I find no provision in the said Act empowering the Revenue Officer to dismiss, inter alia, a revision for default or to proceed against the respondents ex parte. This being so, it can be safely inferred that the said Revenue Officer found it expedient to follow C.P.C. While proceeding against the petitioner ex parte when according to him they did not put in appearance after proclamation. It can further safely be assumed that since it was with reference to the C.P.C. That the ex parte order was passed, the same was to be set aside with reference to the same Code, upon Additional Commissioner being satisfied that the petitioners had not been served.
6. So far as the impugned order of respondent No,1 is concerned, I do agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that he has proceeded in complete oblivion of the said factual position apparent on the face of record.
7. I, therefore, do find that the Additional Commissioner as also the respondent No,1 acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned order. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The ex parte order dated 9-1-1994 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division and order dated 14-4-1999 passed by respondent No,1 are declared to be without lawful authority and void and are set aside. The result would be that Revision Petition No,12 of 1999 filed by Mst.
Samina Jan respondent No,1-A shall be deemea to be pending before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division. Rawalpindi (presently Executive District Officer (Revenue), Rawalpind before whom the parties shall appear on 17-6-2003. The said Officer shall requisition the record of the said Revision No,12 of 1999 and after hearing the contesting parties decide the said revision petition on its merit in accordance with law.
' A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Rawalpindi.