24/08/2026
Transfer of revenue case
Revision petition before Commissioner against order passed by Collector, was transferred by Commissioner to Additional Commissioner who decided the same
2001 M L D 97
[Lahore]
Before Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J
ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER and others‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1164 of 1999, decided on 21st March, 2000.
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 9, 14 .& 164‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑ Transfer of revision‑‑‑Revision petition before Commissioner against order passed by Collector, was transferred by Commissioner to Additional Commissioner who decided the same‑‑ Petitioner challenged order of transfer in Constitutional petition contending that Commissioner before whom revision was filed was not competent to transfer the same to Additional Commissioner for disposal and that order was incompetently passed by Additional Commissioner and was liable to be set aside‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Additional Commissioner was competent under S.9 of West. Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 to exercise same powers as Commissioner and under S.14(2) of said Act Commissioner was competent to distribute business and transfer cases‑‑‑Order of Commissioner whereby revision was transferred to Additional Commissioner not suffering from any illegality, infirmity or in-competency, could not be interfered with.
Mian Inam‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner.
Raja Maqbool Zia for Respondents.
Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, A.A. G.
Date of hearing: 21st March, 2000.
ORDER
Briefly stated the facts are that Respondents Nos.3 to 10 filed a revision petition in the Court of Respondent No.2 against the order dated 4‑11‑1997 passed by the Collector Rawalpindi., The said revision was transferred to Respondent No.1, who decided the same vide .order dated 24‑3‑1999. Through this writ petition the said order has been challenged.
2. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that revision petition against the order of the District Collector could only be heard and disposed of by the Commissioner and the Commissioner was not competent to transfer the same to the Additional Commissioner for disposal. To support his contention, he has relied upon letter dated 24‑4‑1989 issued by the Board of Revenue whereby the Commissioners have been directed to dispose of the appeals in Revenue Judicial cases themselves and not to transfer the same to the Additional Commissioner. The said directions have further been reiterated in another letter dated 15‑12‑1998.
4. Stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the said letters, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to dispose of the revision arising out of order dated 4‑11‑1997 of District Collector Rawalpindi himself and as such order dated 24‑3‑1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner Rawalpindi/Respondent No. l is not warranted by law.
5. Conversely, stand of the learned A.‑A.G. assisted by learned counsel for the respondents is that Government can appoint in any Division an Additional Commissioner who shall exercise all or any of the duties conferred or imposed on a Commissioner as contemplated by section 9 of Land Revenue Act, 1967. It is further argued that under section 14(1), Board of Revenue is competent to distribute business and withdraw and transfer cases and similar powers do exist with the Commissioner under subsection (2) of section 14 (ibid). Thus, Commissioner was competent to transfer revision petition to the Additional Commissioner and consequently latter was competent to decide the same and as such impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.
6. The only point which requires determination is, if the Commissioner is competent to transfer the cases to the Additional Commissioner for disposal or not. Section 9 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 lays down that the Additional Commissioner shall exercise the same powers as the Commissioner. Similarly, section 14(2) of the said Act authorizes a Commissioner to distribute business and withdraw and transfer cases. In the instant case, the revision petition filed with respondent. No.2 was transferred by him to the Additional Commissioner who disposed of the same vide order dated 24‑3‑1999. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to section 16 as well as 17. of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and has tried to convince that the Commissioner is not competent to transfer the cases to the Additional Commissioner except as directed by the Board of Revenue. So far as section 16 of the said Act is concerned, it deals with the conferment of powers of Revenue Officers and section 17 relates to functions of the Revenue Officers. Thus, both these sections are not relevant for the disposal of matter in hand.
8. Since the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, and he was competent to pass the same, so the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
H.B.T./A‑136/L, Petition dismissed.
;
