1998 PLP 397 (SCMR)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.

This case arising out of the Consolidation operations carried out in village Faizpur Khurd, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura has a chequered history. Consolidation scheme of this village was initially confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 22-8-1967. It appears that no one challenged the scheme but the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction set it aside on 21-7-1973 and remanded the case with the following directions:-- "However, to prevent this from causing undue dislocation the present possessions should not be disturbed. The new consolidation scheme should be prepared on such lines that there is a minimum dislocation of the present possessions and as far as possible changes are made through amicable settlement by mutual consent. Possessions should be kept in tact to the extent of entitlements subject to the condition that persons who are deprived of better quality land or better situated land, are duly compensated by giving back their land to them or by giving them equally good land as far as possible or by monetary adjustment, where possible. " The aforementioned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21-7-1973 was challenged in the High Court through Writ Petition No.240 of 1975 which was dismissed on 20-12-1983. Pursuant to the aforementioned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, a fresh scheme was prepared and confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 30-6-1992. Some appeals/revisions are stated to have been filed by some land owners which were still pending adjudication when the present petitioners presented an application statedly signed by a majority of the land owners of the village to the Member, Board of Revenue alleging numerous illegalities/malpractices in the preparation of the scheme. Learned Member (Judicial III) by his order dated 15-1-1994 forwarded the application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons) with the direction that "it may be treated as an appeal under section 11 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960 and disposed of on merits." The learned Member also observed that the appeal would not be hit by the bar of limitation "and that while disposing it of on merits the order of learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 21-7-1973 duly upheld by the Honourable High Court vide order, dated 20-12-1983 would be kept in view."

2. Petitioners challenged the aforementioned order of the learned Member dated 15-1-1994 as also the confirmation of the fresh scheme vide order dated 30-6-1992 in a Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.6525 of 1995) making a grievance therein that serious illegalities/irregularities in the preparation of the impugned scheme having been brought to the notice of the Member, Board of Revenue, he should have set aside the same by exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction instead of sending the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons). Writ petition was dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of Lahore High Court vide order dated 2-4-1996 holding that the order of the Consolidation Officer confirming the scheme "could only be set aside in the proceedings taken under the aforesaid Ordinance and not on the basis of , a miscellaneous application moved by the petitioners before the Chief Settlement Commissioner (sic)." According to the learned Judge, the Member, Board of Revenue "has been overindulgent towards the petitioner by directing that the aforesaid application be treated as an appeal by the Consolidation Officer rather than dismissing it summarily as being not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, appeal/revision by some land owners against the order of confirmation of the scheme is still pending and as such the matter in issue can well be decided in those proceedings. If the petitioners felt aggrieved, they should have sought their remedy in accordance with law. No direction can be issued by this Court to the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction on a miscellaneous application filed by. the petitioners."

3. Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the aforementioned order of the learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and asked him during the hearing as to how the petitioners were aggrieved of the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 15-1-1994 whereby their Misc. Application was sent to the ADC(C) with the direction to treat it as an appeal and to dispose it of on merits keeping in view the observations made in the earlier order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 21-7-1973 with further direction that the appeal would not be hit by bar of limitation. When confronted with this position, the learned counsel stated that he would not press this petition, if an observation is made by this Court for early disposal of the matter remanded by the learned Member, Board of Revenue to A.D.C.(C) vide order dated 15-1-1994. This petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed with the observation that Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons) Sheikhupura shall dispose of he case remanded to him by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 15-1-1994, at an early date. A.A./S-3/S Petition dismissed.