Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1099 of 1985, decided on 10th February, 1986.

‑‑‑ S. 164 ‑ Revisional jurisdiction ‑ Invoking of ‑ Revisional jurisdiction empowers Board of Revenue, Commissioner and Collector to call for any record pending before subordinate Revenue Officer or disposed of by him ‑Revisional jurisdiction could also be exercised in respect of any proceeding or order of subordinate officer ‑Term "any case" or "any proceedings or order" used in S. 164, of Act XVII of 1967, held, would be wide enough to cover proceedings taken and orders passed by Collector granting sanction for review‑Second revision would be competent before Board of Revenue.‑[Revision (civil)].

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., p. 185 and Khair Din v. I. U. Khan P L D 1968 Lah. 11 ref.

‑---Words "Proceeding", "case", "order" and "any"‑Connotation of ‑ Word "proceeding", held, would have wider meaning than word "case"‑Word "proceeding" could be given narrow or wide import depending upon nature and scope of enactment in which same was used, in particular context of language of enactment ‑‑ Word "order" in general would be comprehensive enough to include all kinds of orders including formal orders Word, "any" excludes limitation and qualifications connotating wide generality.

Prem's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. liI, 1964 Edn., p. 1312 ; Pryor v. City Offices Co. (1883) 10 Q B D 504; Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. I, p. 5, para. 7 ; Shorter Oxford Dictionary ; Concise Oxford Dictionary; Webster's New International Dictionary; Duck v. Bates 12 Q B D 79 and Allah Ditta v. The State P L D 1976 Lah. 823 ref.

‑‑ Art. 199‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑Non‑exercise of revisional jurisdiction by Board of Revenue, held, would justify exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by High Court in declaring such order of non‑exercise of jurisdiction to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Ahmad v. Ahmad P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 843; Azizullah v. Ghulaman P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458; Karam Din v. Abbas Khan. P L D 1967 (W. P.) (Rev.) 32 and Mst. Sakina Bibi v. Iftikhar Hussain Minhas P L D 1985 Rev. 36 ref.

Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

M. Mashkoor Sabri for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Date of hearing: 10th February, 1986.

This constitutional petition has been filed to call in question order of the learned Member (Judl.), Board of Revenue, dated 30‑9‑1985 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner as incompetent.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition as emerging from the order of the District Collector dated 21‑8‑1983, briefly stated, are that Noor Muhammad respondent No. 4 herein, who was the owner of 121 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land, sold 78 Kanals and 12 Marlas to the petitioner. Factum of the sale was incorporated in two Mutations Nos. 83 and 84 sanctioned on 25‑6‑1977 on the basis of a decree of the civil Court dated 16‑12‑1976. Respondent No. 4 moved an application before the Collector on 7‑11‑1982 seeking review of the aforesaid mutations on the ground that those were sanctioned in contravention of M. L. R. 115 because as a result of the sale mutations in question, his area was reduced to less than subsistence holding. District Collector, Vehari, after hearing the parties held that both the Mutations Nos. 83 and 84 dated 25‑6‑1977 have been sanctioned in violation of M. L. R. 115 which require review." Permission sought for was, therefore, accorded and the Revenue Officer was directed by order dated 21‑8‑1983 to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the provisions of M. L. R. 115.

3. Petitioner filed an appeal to challenge the aforementioned order of the Collector granting permission for review of the mutations. earned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) Multan, took the view that the order impugned before him was not appealable. He, however, treated the appeal as revision but dismissed it on merits vide order dated 15‑11‑1984 upholding the permission for review granted by the Collector. Petitioner then preferred a revision petition in the Board of Revenue which as stated above, has been dismissed by the learned Member (Judl ) by order dated 30‑9‑1985. Learned Member, after taking note of the factual position and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded. to dismiss the revision petition as being not competent holding that "the learned Additional Commissioner was wrong to treat the appeal as a revision. In actual fact neither an appeal nor revision is competent against the order of the Collector granting permission to review a mutation". This order of the learned Member has been brought under challenge in the present petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Short question which arises for consideration in the context of the present case is whether. the order of the Collector granting sanction for review of the mutations could be challenged in revision before the higher authorities. In order to examine this question, reference may usefully be made to section 164, of the Land Revenue Act which is the relevant provisions conferring the revisional powers. It is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference‑

"Section 164. Revision. (1) The Board of Revenue, may, at any time, on its own motion, or on an application made to it within ninety days of passing of any order, call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer subordinate to it.

(2) A Commissioner or Collector may, at any tithe, of his own motion or on any application made to him within ninety days of the passing of any order, call for the record of any case pend ing before or disposed .of by, any Revenue Officer under his Control.

(3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.

(4) The Board of Revenue may, in any case called for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for under sub-section (2) or reported to him under subsection (3) pass such order as it or he thinks fit:

Provided that no order shall be passed under this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer affecting any person without giving such person an oppor tunity of being heard."

5. Section 164 empowers the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner and the Collector to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any subordinate Revenue Officer and in any such case record whereof has been called for, Board of Revenue and the Commis sioner can pass such orders as they deem fit. Proviso to the section further shows that interference in revision can also be made with any pro ceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer. It is thus clear that the revisional jurisdiction of the relevant authorities can be invoked in any case pending before a subordinate Revenue Officer or disposed of by him and ix is also attracted to any proceedings or order of any subordinate officer. Now, the terms 'any case' or 'any proceedings or order' used in section 164 of the Land Revenue Act are wide enough to cover the proceedings taken and the orders passed by the Collector granting sanction for review. These terms are not defined in the Land Revenue Act but the meanings given to them in different legal and judicial dictionaries show that these are very comprehensive terms having a wide import. Dictionary meaning of the word 'case' is "a thing that has happened". In legal parlance, it means "an aggregate of facts which furnishes occasion for the exercise of the jurisdiction of a Court of justice". Refers Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 185.

6. The word 'proceeding' has a wider meaning than the word case'. According to Prem's Judicial Dictionary, Vol. III, 1312, 1964 Edn. "'proceeding' is a word with a larger meaning than :action' ". It is further stated at page 1310 "the word 'proceeding' can be given a narrow or a wide import depending upon the nature and scope of an enactment in which it is used and in the particular context of the language of the enactment in which it appears. It may in some enactment mean an action or that which initiates an action and in others enact ments it may also mean a step in an action". Reference is also made therein to Pryor v. City Offices Co. ((1883) 10 B D 504), wherein the phrase 'in any proceeding' was construed as a general phrase meant to cover every step B in an action and is equivalent to the word action' ". In Halsbury Laws of England Vol. I, Page 5, para. 7, it is laid down, "the term 'proceedings' is frequently used to denote a step in an action". In Shorter Oxford Dictionary, it is defined as "doing a legal action or pro cess ; any act done by the Authority of a Court of Law." The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'proceedings' as used in legal sense as "steps taken in legal action". According to Webster's New International Dictionary, when used in law in the plural, it means : course of procedure in action at law ; any step or act taken in conducting litigation.

Now, to examine the connotation of the word 'order', this note being a term of art has no fixed legal meaning. According to Prem's Judicial Dictionary, it cover's commands or directions that something shall be done (P. 1190) ............ the term 'order' in general is comprehensive enough to include all kinds of orders including al formal order (p. 1191).

The use of the word 'any' further widens the scope of the aforereferred expressions. According to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 5th D Edition, any' is a word which excludes limitations or qualifications (per Fry L.J., Duck v. Bates (12 Q B D 79). Allah Ditta v. The State (P L D 1976 Lah. 823), it was held that the word any' excludes limitations and qualifications and connotes wide generality.

7. Viewed in the light of the foregoing discussion, supervisory anal controlling provisions of section 164 of the Land Revenue Act would be attracted to all kinds and classes of cases and proceedings dealt with and orders passed by the subordinate Revenue Officers under the said Act. 1t may be noted that there is nothing in section 164, to suggest that its application is restricted to any particular class of cases or orders. On the contrary the aforediscussed expression used in section 164, rather show that the provision covers a wide generality of cases and orders. There is thus no reason as to why the proceedings initiated for review and the orders passed therein granting sanction for review should not fall within the wide scope of section 164. It may be pertinently stated that sanction for review granted by the Collector in the instant case was a legal requirement for obtaining the review as envisaged under section 1631 of the Land Revenue Act.

8. In view of what has been said above, I am of the considered view that the order of the Collector granting sanction for review was open to challenge in revision before the higher authorities, namely, the Commis sioner and the Board of Revenue. As regards the further revision before F the Board of Revenue, there are no two opinions that second revision before the Board of Revenue is competent. If any authority is needed, reference may be made to Khair Din v I. U. Khan (P L D 1968 Lah, 11), wherein it was. held that it is competent for the Member, Board of Revenue to entertain a second revision.

9. Apart from what has been held above, I would also like to place on record the consistent view taken by the learned Members, Board of Revenue and their predecessors, the Financial Commissioners that a revision petition could be entertained against the orders granting sanction to review. The earliest judgment in this behalf is reported as Ahmad v. Ahmad (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 843). This case was decided in 1912 and it was held therein that the sanction granted for review though not appealable could be taken up on the revisional side. The same view was taken by Mr. Alen Mitchel, Financial Commissioner in Azizudah v. Ghulaman (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 458), a case decided in 1940. Reference may be made to the following observations of the Financial Commissioner‑

"The wide powers of revision given to the Financial Commissioner, however, are clearly intended to be used in exceptional cases, such as the present, when failure to interfere at a preliminary stage would result in prolonged proceedings which must be infructuous in the long run. The sanction to review in the present case is so directly contrary to established law and practice that if after further proceedings the previous decisions on the mutations, now over ten years old, were to be reversed, the review proceedings would have to be quashed on appeal or revision and the original orders restored. It is, therefore. obviously in the interest of all parties that once the attention of the Financial Commissioner has been drawn to the matter, the incorrect sanction should be revoked, and further infructuous proceedings prevented."

This latter case was relied upon by a learned Member of the Board of Revenue in Karam Din v. Abbas Khan (P L D 1967 (W. P.) (Rev.) 32), and it was observed that even though the order of the Collector sanctioning review of the mutation was not appealable, it could be interfered with in revision and accordingly order of the Additional Commissioner passed on appeal against Collector's sanction for review was treated by the learned Member to have been passed in revision. In yet another case reported as Mst. Sakina Bibi v. Ifrikhar Hussuin Minhas (P L D 1985 Rev. 36), Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Sheikh, a sitting learned Member of the Board of Revenue has taken the view that orders granting permission for review can be agitated in revision under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act. It appears that the attention of the learned Member who passed the impugned order was not drawn to the aforementioned cases.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dismissing the petitioner's revision on the short ground that no revision was competent against the orders granting sanction for review, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. ‑ Resultantly, the revision petition) filed by the petitioner in the Board of Revenue shall be treated as pending and the same shall be disposed of on merits, of course, after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circum stances of the case.

A. A. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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