1989SCMR681 (PLP)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑A plot of evacuee land was allowed to be sold to the petitioner by the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement & Rehabilitation Wing) dated 20‑8‑1980. Subsequently, the same learned Member, Board of Revenue, cancelled the earlier order allowing the sale of the said plot on 9‑2‑1981. This last mentioned action was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition before the Lahore High Court. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 12‑2‑1983 in terms that the learned Member Board of Revenue, was directed to hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order in so far as the impugned order dated 9‑2‑1981 was passed without hearing the petitioner and the principle of audi alteram partem was not complied with. The petitioner was not fully satisfied with the said order inasmuch as he considered that the order allowing the sale of the plot in dispute in his favour had become final and that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to modify or cancel the said order. The learned Division Bench hearing the inter -court appeal, however, dismissed it on the ground that this question too could be raised before the Member, Board of Revenue to whom the case had been remanded for decision afresh. The petitioner has now come to this Court seeking leave to appeal against the aforesaid two judgments of the Lahore High Court. We have heard Mr.Muhammad Asif Jan, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He submits that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, had become functus officio after allowing the sale vide his order dated 20‑8‑1980 and could not deal with the matter thereafter. Hence the subsequent order dated 9‑2‑1981 was without jurisdiction and as the learned Member, Board of Revenue, could not deal with this matter; therefore, the order of remand to him was not justified. The Department had taken up the position before the High Court that the order dated 20‑8‑1980 was obtained by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation and that even otherwise the learned Member, Board of Revenue, could not have allowed the sale of the disputed land as the same could only be disposed of through an open public auction, under the terms of the law. Hence such an order could not be allowed to stand. We feel that the High Court has taken a very fair view of the whole situation. The entire matter will be re‑opened before the Member, Board of Revenue, where the petitioner will be at liberty to take any plea available to him under law where after the learned Member, Board of Revenue, shall decide the A matter by a "speaking order". In the meanwhile. The petitioner's possession over the land, if he is indeed in possession thereof, will not be disturbed. This petition is disposed of accordingly. AA./A‑398/S Order accordingly.