Law: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 162, 164 (2)

  (a) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss. 162 & 164 (2)---Revisional jurisdiction---Not barred by existence of right of appeal. It was contended that where the person aggrieved did not file an appeal, against the impugned mutation within thirty days, to the Collector as provided in clause (a), subsection (I) of section 162 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 it was not competent for the Collector to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 164 of the Act: Held, the existence of the right of an appeal is not a bar for the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. A revising authority may not ordinarily exercise that power when another remedy is available in law. However, if he decides to exercise his revisional jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that an aggrieved person has the right of an appeal available to him, his action being within the ambit of law, cannot be questioned as one without lawful authority. In certain cases of grave miscarriage of justice or where an order is without jurisdiction, it is in fact just and proper that the authority should exercise its revisional powers to save a person of the agony of multipli city of proceedings. (b) West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164(2) Revision---Fraud---Limitation---Cancellation of mutation allegedly procured on fraud---No question of limitation in such cases--- Fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings. The order of Assistant Collector, sanctioning mutation, was set aside by the Collector in revision under section 164(2), West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 on the finding that the mutation itself was procured by fraudulent means. The order of the Collector was challenged on the plea that the application before the Collector, having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation (90 days), merited rejection. Held, no question of limitation arises in law. An order, how ever, independent the tribunal or authority making it and however exclusive its jurisdiction, is a nullity if it be proved that it was obtained by fraud, and in appropriate cases it is the duty of the authority that has seisin of the case to recall sun motu an order procured…