1986 PLP 782 (MLD)

2. The learned counsel has argued that the impugned orders cannot be termed as exercise of sue motu jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue as the Board of Revenue took up the matter on the application of 44 persons. It is further argued that if this revision petition is to be treated as an ordinary revision petition, it is barred by limitation and the Board of Revenue had no business to deal with it as in the meantime the proceedings had already attained finality. There is, however, no justification for accepting this contention. It is true that 44 persons through an application pointed out the irregularities committed by the consolidation staff in preparing and sanctioning the Scheme. But to see whether the Board of Revenue was acting suo motu or not, the circumstances of the whole case have to be looked into. The Board of Revenue was not looking only into the application of these 44 persons but was also examining the report submitted Consolidation Officer Headquarters. Certain land owners had also called on the Member with complaints of irregularities in the consolidation proceedings. The whole considered in the meeting of the Officers of the Consolidation Department and it was there that it was decided that the matter cannot be resolved by the individual petitions and that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue was imperative. Considering this background it is clear that the Board of Revenue was exercising its jurisdiction suo motu and it cannot be dismissed as a revision petition by 44 persons which, according to the learned counsel. had become barred by limitation.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders were bad for want of notices to more than 500 landowners of the village. The learned counsel pointed out that notice was given only to 17 named respondents and the word 'others' used in the notice can refer only to co‑Khatadaran of the 17 respondents and not to the other landowners in the village. I find no merit in the submission. The seventeen so‑called named respondents were served individually. These persons are now among the petitioners in the present writ petition. As regards the question that the word 'others' in the notice referred only to co‑Khatadaran of the 17 respondents, this can be determined only in the light of circumstances of the whole case. It has already been observed that the Board of Revenue had decided to exercise jurisdiction suo motu, considering that the problem could not be solved piecemeal'. It is clear that in eyes of the Board of Revenue the question was not confined to the 44 and the 17 but also related to the others. The service of the others, who were more than 500, by beat of drum, was therefore good service. The learned counsel for the respondents had stated that hundreds of people actually appeared before the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the respondents was appearing for one of the parties before the Board of Revenue and I have no reason to doubt the correctness of his statement. In my opinion the service was proper and, the petitioners cannot set up a plea of being condemned unheard.

4. It has also been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the report of the Consolidation Officer Headquarters of 14‑5‑1978 which formed the basis of the orders of the Board of Revenue was not made available to the petitioners. It is argued that this amounts to lack of proper hearing. It is, however, interesting, that the petitioners applied for a copy and later for inspection of the report only after the case was decided by the Board of Revenue. The petitioners never found it necessary to obtain a copy of the above‑mentioned report at time of hearing before the Board of Revenue. This is obviously an afterthought and no benefit can be had by the petitioners on this account.

5. The writ petition was admitted to consider whether the Board of Revenue had the authority to nullify its judicial decision by executive action. The facts of the present case, however, are different. The Board of Revenue acted on the judicial side when it directed revision of the Consolidation Scheme in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction. The principle discussed in Sufaid Khan's case N L R 1982 Rev. 87 therefore cannot be pressed into service in the present case. In Sufaid Khan's case revision of Scheme was ordered on the executive side after the Board of Revenue had decided on the judicial side against the revision of the Scheme. The question of the finality of the orders of the Board of Revenue passed an judicial side on 12‑11‑1978 in Zahid Hussain's case, however, is still a relevant question. But to say that this order had attained finality, a number of questions have to be examined. First of all, this order was challenged by Zahid Hussain, etc. in Writ Petition No.2930 of 1980. This writ petition was withdrawn when Zahid Hussain, etc. found that the Board of Revenue itself would be able to give relief which they wanted from the High Court. The Board of Revenue earlier in a meeting on 24‑4‑1980 had decided upon a wholesale revision of the Consolidation Scheme and for that purpose to exercise the suo motu jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. There was, therefore, sufficient justification for withdrawal of the Writ Petition: In this background, the withdrawal of the writ petition cannot be interpreted to mean the acceptance of the legality of the orders impugned in the writ petition. Secondly, the orders of Board of Revenue of 12‑11‑1978 are open to question any way, as in implementing the orders passed in writ petition 357 of 1971, among others, the directions regarding classification of soil were disregarded. Classification of soil goes to the very root of consolidation proceedings. Since fresh Scheme confirmed by the Collector in 1977 did' not comply with the direction of the Board of Revenue and the High Court, the orders' passed by the Board of Revenue on the judicial side in Zahid Hussain's' case on 22‑11‑1978 could not be approved of. The respondents therefore are within their rights to support the order of the Board of Revenue of 30‑1‑1982.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the respondents have shut themselves out on account of the statement made by them in the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.466 of 1975. In this petition orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No.357 of 1971 were challenged but the civil petition became infructuous when it was pointed out by 'the learned counsel for the present respondents, that, in the meantime, in pursuance of the orders of the High Court, fresh consolidation had already taken place. There is no justification to hold that the respondents could not agitate against the revised Scheme, if they had a grievance against it.

7. On merits it may be seen that the irregularities committed are such that they cannot be remedied in individual cases. The Board of Revenue found the following irregularities: (i) Measurements were not made correctly. (ii) 'Thakbast' was plotted wrongly allowing the outer boundary of village Kamas to intrude into the boundary of village Mal from 6 to 11 Karams, thereby providing a ground to the land owners of Kamas to put up false claims over the overlapped strip of village Mal. (iii) An area of 1,684 Kanals was given to 90 landowners over and above their entitlement, whereas 94 were denied of their entitlement to the extent of 165 Kanals 18 Marlas. (iv) Seven Kanals and nine Marlas of land owned by 'Muslim Auqaf were reduced and squandered among landowners. Similarly 174 Kanals 6 marlas belonging to the Central Government was allotted to some influential landowners. (v) Land has been distributed on the basis of fresh classification of soil as existed in the year 1976 at the time of framing the new Consolidation Scheme, in utter disregard of the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑3‑1975 directing that classification as existed in the year 1967 at the time of framing the original consolidation scheme be adhered to, to the extent possible. (iv) The Scheme was confirmed by the ADC (C)/Collector (Coned.) after hearing the objection of only 42 out of ‑622 right‑holders and the rest were condemned unheard. (vii) The mutation of partition was not sanctioned according to law. The defect in measurements, and the classification in particulars, from among the irregularities found by the Board of Revenue, are such, that, they go to the very root of the Consolidation Scheme and affect the entire village. The Board of Revenue was, therefore, justified in directing fresh consolidation of the village. It is true that it has taken a number of years to finalise the consolidation in village Mal but that is no reason to perpetuate the irregularities which have been found to exist in the proceedings. In view of the above considerations I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y.H Petition dismissed.