1989 PLP 858 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑‑An order of ejectment against the petitioner for default in payment of rent was passed by the Collector on the executive side on 21‑5‑1973. This was re‑iterated by him on 24‑5‑1973 while disposing of the application of respondents Nos.2 and

3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 21‑5‑1973, but the appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 15‑9‑1973. However, the revision filed against the aforesaid two orders was accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue (Mr.S.M. Nasim) on 4‑12‑1973. However, on a review petition filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 the order dated 4‑12‑1973 was recalled and the review petition allowed by Mr.S.M. Nasim vide order dated 4‑2‑1974. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court (W.P. No.299 of 1974) challenging the review order passed on 4‑2‑1974 on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. This plea was not accepted by the High Court on the view that although Mr.S.M. Nasim could not exercise powers of the Member, Board of Revenue (as held in the case of Ijaz Ahmad v. Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (P L D 1976 Lah. 563) and, therefore, the order passed by him in review was not sustainable but in so far as the earlier order passed on 4‑12‑1973 in revision was also passed by him (Mr.S.M. Nasim) hence the petitioner could not rely on the aforesaid revisional order, which was in his favour. On this view of the matter, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 15‑9‑1973 would normally appear to be still pending requiring disposal in accordance with law. But this conclusion was not accepted by the Iligh Court on the ground that the petitioner not having come to the high Court with clean hands and further that the order dated 24‑5‑1973 passed by the Collector for ejectment of the petitioner not having been set aside, it was not worth wile to send the case back to the Member, Board of Revenue for disposal of the revision petition. In support of this petition for leave, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Collector dated 24‑5‑1973 itself recites that it was merely reiterating the earlier order dated 21‑5‑1973 passed by him on the executive side and that the said order dated 21‑5‑1973 was duly challenged in appeal and then on revision. Accordingly, the order dated 24‑5‑1973 was, in fact, challenged. And, as for the plea that the petitioner had not come with clean hands, the said finding was based on incorrect assumptions of fact. Issue notice to the respondents for an early date with intimation that the petition may be converted into an appeal on the date of hearing and disposed of accordingly. In the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained. This petition be placed for hearing before a Bench of three Judges in view of the fact that it may be converted into an appeal and disposed of accordingly. A./B‑85/S Leave to appeal granted.