1994 PLP 1513 (MLD)

Dispute in the Civil Revision emerged from consolidation of holdings carried out in Village Renewal of Te4il Shakargarh. Petitioner and Said Rasool-respondent owned land in the above Revenue Estate. Scheme for consolidation of holdings in the Revenue Estate was approved by the Consolidation Officer on 21-11-1975. Petitioner appealed from it to the Collector of District Sialkot. Her appeal was dismissed, on 22-9-1976. Against this decision, she preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) Revision was partly allowed on 28-3-1977, and some adjustment of the wandas of the petitioners and respondent Said Rasool were made. Thereupon, a further revision in the name of Said Rasool was taken to the Board of Revenue by Muhammad Shaft respondent No.3. Revision petition was signed by aforesaid Muhammad Shaft. However, he did not disclose his authority for filing of the revision on behalf of Said Rasool. Upon being served, petitioner moved a miscellaneous petition objecting to the filing of revision petition by respondent No.3 on behalf of Said Rasool. Learned Member, Board of Revenue, failed to decide the above-said miscellaneous application, and, instead, gave decision on merits of the civil revision by modifying Khatas of the parties. Decision of the revision petition was given on 27-10-1977, by learned Member, Board of Revenue. On 23-7-1978, petitioner instituted a civil suit for setting aside of the order passed by Member, Board of Revenue. On 17-1-1979, trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code on account of bar of jurisdiction founded on sections 26 and 27 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings .Ordinance, 1960. Petitioner preferred an appeal. It failed on similar grounds in the Court of Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 2-12-1980. Thereupon, she preferred the present civil revision. It was admitted, on 3-11-1981. Merits of the order passed by Member, Board of Revenue were not questioned in the revision at its hearing. Only point taken for its invalidity was that there was no valid revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue filed at the instance of an aggrieved person. It was urged that Said Rasool did not institute the revision petition and gave no authority to Muhammad Shaft for its filing. As far Muhammad Shaft, his signatures on the memorandum of revision were unauthorised. Therefore, in absence of a proper revision from a competent source, Member, Board of Revenue could not have interfered with. No other point was urged. On behalf of respondents, it was urged that since the land-in-dispute was situated at Shakargarh, the civil Court at Lahore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide a dispute about it. Further, bar of jurisdiction regarding subject-matter founded on section 26 of 'the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 was also pressed in support by them. It was also urged that since Said Rasool, who was present in Court, had owned the revision filed in the Board of Revenue, it shall not be in any way profitable to order a fresh scrutiny about it by the Board of Revenue, more particularly, when its final order was not questioned on its merits. Respondents 2 and 3 were present at the hearing of Civil Revision. Respondent No.2 owned the filing of revision petition and submitted that he had authorised respondent No.3 for its filing. He stated that he gave a special power of attorney to him for this purpose. However, that special power of attorney was not forthcoming on record. Photo copy of a registered general power of attorney was placed on file. Since it was subsequent to the decision by the Board of Revenue, it may not be helpful. Be that as it may, it contained a specific power for filing of appeal against the Consolidation Scheme. Board of Revenue was possessed of revisional jurisdiction under section 13 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. It could act suo motu or on the application of an aggrieved party. Powers were fairly wide. Therefore, it could not be successfully asserted that it acted without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, jurisdiction of the civil Court appeared to be expressly barred is section 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Adjustment of lands and their distribution in consolidation operations fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities and, in my view, civil Court could not sit in appeal on them. By the very nature of the task, their judgments were to be respected subject to remedies for their correction in the mode and manner provided in the Law of Consolidation of Holdings. Even if not expressly ousted, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred impliedly. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCMR 292 and of this Court in Warris and another v. Muhammad Aslam Khan and others PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah. 342, Mst. Begum Jan and others v. Attique Ahmad and others 1979 CLC 426 appeared to be in point. Case of Zaheer Ahmad and 6 others v. Allah Ditta and 16 others PLD 1983 Lah. 256 proceeded on distinguishable features and was not helpful and there was no element of fraud involved in the adjudication by the Member, Board of Revenue. Since the jurisdiction qua subject-matter of the dispute did not exist in the civil Court it rightly refrained to proceed further, at the very inception, for rejecting the plaint of the suit. Territorial jurisdiction was also wanting in the civil Court at Lahore. Admittedly, the land subject-matter of consolidation was situated in Tehsil Shakargarh and under section 16 of Civil Procedure Code, the suit regarding it could be instituted where it was situated. Since I objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the .Civil Court at Lahore was not raised in the defence before it, section 21 of Civil Procedure Code precluded its subsequent urging in appeal or revision unless it occasioned failure of justice. As I am agreeing with the view taken in the lower Courts that their jurisdiction respecting subject-matter of dispute was barred, I shall not express on the effect of absence of territorial jurisdiction in the civil Court at Lahore. There was another factor which dissuaded me to interfere and that was that justice having already been done between the parties, it shall not be equitable just to interfere for upsetting the decision given in revision by Member, Board of ears ago. The view of revisional jurisdiction 1 take was supported by Revenue, Y the case of Messrs Ghulam Farid Muhammad Latif and others v. The Central Bank of India Limited, Lahore PLD 1954 Lah.

575. In result, Civil Revision is dismissed without an order for its costs in this Court. Records be returned. H.B.T./R-134/L Revision dismissed.