Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 37 .of 1951‑52, decided on 18th November 1953, from District Multan.

(a) Colonization of government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 20 (e)‑Relatives as mentioned in S. 20 (d) are not mentioned in order of preference‑Whether appeal lies from Collector's nomination only an academic question.

The order in which various relatives are mentioned in the subsection (d) of section 20 does n amount to, an order of preference.

Whether an appeal lies from an order of nomination by a collector is an academic one.

(b) Punjab Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16--- Revision instead of a second appeal‑No legal bar.

There is no legal bar to a revision petition being put in before the Financial Commissioner by a party which is entitled to submit to him a second appeal against the Commissioner's order.

Muhammad Amin Khan, for Petitioner.

Ch. Abdur Rahman, for Respondent.

‑The Colonization Officer, Pakpattan, decided that the present petitioners (Abdul Aziz and Dhunda) should be nominated as successors to Muhammad Din (deceased grantee), Mst. Mehtab Bibi (the present respondent) appealed to the Commissioner, and he upset the decision of the Colonization Officer and appointed her as the successor. The other party has moved the Financial. Commissioner in revision.

There is adequate justification for thinking that nominations made by the Collector under section 20 (e) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act are not subject to appeal. 'This was the decision taken by my learned predecessor Mr. Calvert in a case reported as 1933 L L T 49=(P L D Rev. 1932‑50 p. 29). His view was dissented from by my learned predecessor Mr. Mitchell in a decision reported as 1941 L L T 188, but according to him, the right of the Collector to nominate the successor was a matter of absolute discretion and the chance of success in appeal was very meagre. I am, therefore, inclined to the view that the discussion on this subject whether an appeal lies in such cases is an academic one.

The Colonization Officer recounted what he considered to be the disqualifications of the present respondent. He did so because he thought that a married daughter should be normally preferred to male agnates, because she is mentioned before the latter in section 20 (d) ibid. This view is not warranted, because the order in which various relatives are mentioned in the subsection (d) does not amount to an order of preference. I observe that the Commissioner's decision is also influenced by a similar view. He has tried to' counter the arguments of the Colonization Officer in respect of the matters which were considered as her dis qualifications.

For the above reasons, I think that the Collector's nomination should prevail in this case. I accordingly accept this petition and restore the order of the Collector after duly upsetting the order of the Commissioner.

I have observed in this case that the petitioners could have moved me in second appeal. They did not do so perhaps under the impression that there had been an initial decision, though mistaken, by an Assistant Collector in their favour. In this behalf, it is noteworthy that the present petitioner allowed the proceeding before the Commissioner to be dealt with as an appeal and did not insist on the proceeding being treated as a revision. There is, however, no legal bar to a revision petition being put in before the Financial Commissioner by a party which is entitled to; submit to him a second appeal against the Commissioner's order:

Announced.

A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.