1994 PLP 2177 (CLC)

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 184 to 188: Ex parte C.M. Latif Rawn for Respondents Nos. 5 to

183. Date of hearing 12th June, 1994. This judgment will also dispose of W.P. No. 9028/92 as common questions of law and facts have been raised in both of them.

2. The dispute relates to partition of Shamlat Deh Land. As to mode of partition there was an agreement between the parties before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 204/78. The Consolidation Officer prepared a scheme in the light of the said compromise but the respondents felt aggrieved and filed appeal before the Collector. The said appeal was dismissed for default. A revision petition against the consolidation scheme was filed in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). The said revision petition was still pending in which an adjournment was granted but the respondents filed another revision petition before the learned Member, Board of Revenue which has been disposed. of through the impugned order dated 4‑9‑1991. The learned Member, Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on the ground that during the pendency of the aforementioned revision petition before the Additional Commissioner in which only an adjournment had 1?een given no second revision was maintainable. He, however, proceeded to exercise suo Motu jurisdiction in revision and passed the impugned order interpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court based on the said compromise and given direction to the Consolidation Authorities to partition the land. in a particular manner which according to him was in accordance with the compromise. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the said impugned order filed this writ petition. In pursuance of the said Action made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue the Consolidation Authorities prepared a scheme for partition of the land against which the respondents feeling aggrieved have filed the connected W.P. No. 9028/92.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the revision petition before the Additional Commissioner the learned Member, Board of Revenue was not vested with jurisdiction to exercise suo Motu powers in revisional jurisdiction has force. It is well‑settled law that if a revision petition was filed by a party and the same had been dismissed the Court could not be said to have exercised suo Motu jurisdiction in revision if, it proceeds to assume the same. In the presence of a revision petition pending disposal before the Additional Commissioner the learned Member, Board of Revenue should not have decided the matter in exercise of suo Motu power in revision. Order dated 4‑9‑1991 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is, therefore, of no legal effect and cannot be sustained. The order of Consolidation Authorities regarding preparation of the consolidation scheme in pursuance of the said order challenged in the connected Writ Petition No. 9028/92 is also of no legal effect having been based on the said void order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.

4. Both the writ petitions are accepted. Order dated 4‑9‑1991 passed by the Board of Revenue and in pursuance thereof the consolidation scheme prepared by the Consolidation Authorities challenged in W.P. No. 9028/92 are hereby declared to have been passed and prepared without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. The Additional Commissioner shall decide the revision petition pending before him which shall be decided within two months from the date of completion of service and presence of the parties before him. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑652/L Petitions accepted.