Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 288 of 1957‑58, decided on 7th February 1959, District Bahawalpur.

S. 16 read with S. 15 (3)‑--Provision of S. 15 (3) regarding appeals do not apply by analogy to revision petitions.

The powers of revision vested in the Board of Revenue are very wide, and section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act does not bar a revision petition even where an order refusing to review or confirming, on review, a previous order has been passed by a Revenue Officer.

Section 15 (3) is restricted to appeals it cannot by implication be taken to extend to revision petitions because their purpose and scope under the law are not precisely the same as those of appeals.

Azizullah v. Ghulaman P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458 ref.

This is a second revision under section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act read with section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against an order of the Additional Commis sioner, Bahawalpur Division. The facts of the case are fairly simple. The petitioner was allotted some land in Chak No. 94/DB in Tahsil Yazman of Bahawalpur District in 1951. After sometime he applied for exchange of this land with other Government land situated in Chak No. 84/DB of the same Tahsil. The Collector rejected this application. The petitioner filed a review application before him. He, however, confirmed in review his order refusing exchange. Then the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner who rejected it, holding on the analogy of section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act that a revision petition was barred where a Revenue Officer had refused to review or had confirmed on review his previous order.

One of the contentions of the petitioner before me is that the Additional Commissioner's order is erroneous because section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act bars an appeal, but not a revision application. This is correct. Section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act lays down that an appeal shall not lie from an order refusing to review or confirming on review a previous order. Where a provision of law is explicitly restricted to appeals it cannot by implication be taken to extend to revision petitions because their purpose and scope under the law or not precisely the same as those of appeals. No doubt in Azizullah v. Ghulaman P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458 the learned Financial Commissioner made the remark. "In normal circumstances I am opposed on principle to entertaining in the guise of a revision petition what is to all intents and purposes an appeal in cases where the Legislature has decreed that no appeal shall lie". Yet the learned Financial Commissioner entertained the revision petition in that case and accepted it. As a matter of fact the powers of revision vested in the Financial Commissioner are very wide, and I must hold that so far as the legal proposi tion is concerned section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act does not bar a revision petition even where an order refusing to review A or confirming, on review, a previous order has been passed by a Revenue Officer. On merits, however, this petition cannot stand. The application for exchange of land was refused by the Collector on the basis of a settled policy of the Government. He found no valid reason, in the course of review proceedings, to change his order; and I see no ground to interfere with it either. In effect, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.

A. H. Petition 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.