Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 4‑A of 1954‑55, decided on 27th May, 1955, District Attock.

S. 15 (3)‑New order passed on review, which does not confirm the previous order, gives a new right of appeal.

The Additional Collector made an assessment of over five lakhs of rupees of royalty at ten times the normal rate under Rule 17 (iv) of the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules read with Rule 3 (2) as amended. On review, the assessment was increased as further evidence was made available of the use of boulders by the applicant for review. The party aggrieved went in appeal to Commissioner who remanded the case for further enquiry. In second appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Government took the plea that appeal to Com missioner was not competent under section 15 (3) Punjab Land Revenue Act.

Held, that the case was not covered by section 15 (3).

The order originally passed by the Collector was not con firmed by him on review. Fresh evidence was admitted and a new order passed on merits increasing the amount of royalty assessed on the appellant. The subsequent order cannot, be construed to be. a confirmation in review of the Collector's original order.

‑The Additional Collector, Attock, by his order dated 2nd February, 1954 held that the appellant Messrs. Gammaon (Pakistan) Limited had used in Government buildings constructed by them about eighteen lac cubic feet shingle and approximately five lac eighty four thousand cubic feet stone without a quarrying permit. He accordingly made a heavy assessment of royalty at ten times the normal rate amounting to over five lac of rupees under Rule 17 (iv) of the Punjab Minor Mineral Rules read with Rule 3 (2) as recently amended. The Company applied for what purports to be a review of this order as a result of which the Collector increas ed the assessment further by more than twenty five thousands rupees as certain additional evidence regarding use of boulders by the appellant Company became available: On appeal the Commissioner has remanded the case for further enquiry and a fresh decision. His direction is that the Collector should go into the question more thoroughly and. investigate whether action would not be justified against the suppliers of minerals used by the appellants as they themselves are admittedly not the party who quarried them and have been held construc tively liable under Rule 3 (a). A second appeal has now been filed by the Punjab Province against the above mentioned order of the Commissioner.

Three points have been taken up before me; firstly that no appeal was competent before the Commissioner under section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act as the Collector had confirmed his previous order; secondly that the appeal is time -barred if the original order dated 2nd February, 1954 is taken into consideration; thirdly that the Commissioner had acted inconsistently with the view that he took in Messrs. Red Path Brown & Company v. The Punjab Government (P L D (Rev.) 1955 Pb. 11.) which came up in appeal and was decided on 27th May, 1954. I will ‑deal with these three contentions separately.

To take up the last point first; the order of the Commis sioner in the case of Messrs. Red Path Brown & Company v. The Punjab Government was set aside as reported in P L D (Rev.) 1955 Pb. 11. It was held that the constructive liability as contemplated in Rule 3 (2) is extended only if a person is found in possession of a recently quarried mineral. As the mineral in that particular case had been used up in Govern ment buildings some time ago and was not found in the posses sion of Messrs. Red Path Brown & Company it was held that the rule in question did not apply.

As regards the first contention; the order passed by the Collector on 2nd February, 1954 was not confirmed by him on review. Fresh evidence was admitted and a new order passed on merits increasing the amount of royalty assessed on the appellant. The subsequent order cannot, therefore, be cons trued to be a confirmation in review of the Collector's original order. The case, is thus not covered by section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act. As a result the second contention would also automatically fail.

I would for these reasons decline to interfere in the order passed by the learned Commissioner, which seems justified on merits. As a result the appeal stands dismissed. It may be mentioned that respondents have preferred no cross‑objections or appeal or asked for any redress.

A. H. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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