Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. SARDAR SULTANA VS Respondent: MST. AISHA BIBI AND OTHERS
P L D 1957 W
P L D 1957 W. P. (Rev.) 14
Before H. A. Majid, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Mst. SARDAR SULTANA‑Petitioner
Versus
Mst. AISHA BIBI and others‑Respondents
Revision Side No. 200 of 1955‑56, decided on 16th June 1956, District Multan.
(a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)----
----S. 29‑Officer to permit transfers of tenancies ‑Commissioner not bound to authorise officer by name Authority may be given to officer by designation.
(b) Interpretation of statutes‑----
-----Executive instructions Cannot do away with power given under Act.
Muhammad Bashir Husain, Advocate for Petitioner.
ORDER
H. A. MAJID.‑------The petitioner's contention is that the officer. who can be authorised by the Commissioner under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act. 1912, to permit transfers of tenancies, must be an officer appointed by name. This contention is not warranted by the phraseology adopted in the Act. There is, however, a mention in the Colony Manual to the effect that Colonization Officers selected for the purpose should be selected by name. But this instruction is of an executive character and cannot do away with a power which is legally given under the Act.
The Deputy Commissioner, Multan, who granted the permission in this case, has been authorised by the Commis sioner by designation. The authorisation is not available in original at present, but I remember having seen the authorisation myself when I was working as Financial Commissioner some two years ago.
In the above circumstances, it cannot be reasonably argued that the permission given by the Deputy Commissioner in this case was ineffective or that the transfer which was made on the basis of his permission, is in any way invalid. The lower Revenue Officers were, therefore, justified in mutating the transfer of the tenancy. I accordingly dismiss this petition for revision without issuing notice to the other party.
The Commissioner. Multan Division, should, however, make sure whether the authorisation, which is reported to have been issued many years ago, permitting certain officers of the rank of Collector to grant the permission required under section 19 of the Act, is no longer available in any office. If he finds that the original authorisation is untraceable, he should consider issuing a fresh one.
K.M.A. Petition dismissed.