1977 PLP 279 (SCMR)

Respondents : Ex parte. Date of hearing : 23rd April 1376. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This appeal by special leave of this Court arises out of a consolidation proceeding. It appears that the relevant conso lidation scheme was prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer some time in 1962. Respondent Sohna, one of the persons affected by the conso lidation scheme, filed an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation), but it was dismissed on the 20th of December, 1962, on the grounds of limitation and default in appearance of the said respondent. The respondent's revision having been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), he filed a second revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The learned Member allowed the revision by his order dated the 6th of March, is 6th and ordered certain adjustments. The appellant having been unsuccessful in seeking review of the cruet of tire Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 6th of March, 19x6, approached the High Court on a writ petition, but it was dismissed on the 5th of February,

196. The appellant then obtained leave, to appeal from this Court. Leave was granted to consider whether the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 6th of March, 1966, was binding upon the appellant, who was a minor at the time and no guardian had been appointed to represent him. Mr. Muhammad Muzaffer, Advocate, has appeared in support of the appeal, and be has repeated the ground upon which leave bas been granted. He has contended that under rule 25 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1960, it was incumbent upon the learned Member, Board of Revenue, to have appointed a guardian for the appellant, and non‑com pliance with the rule has vitiated the order of the learned Member. Rule 25 prescribes as follows :‑

"Minors‑--Where a landowner whose holding is likely to be affected by a scheme of consolidation is a minor, the Consolidation Officer may, after making such enquiries as may be necessary, by order in writing appoint a suitable person, whose interest is not adverse to that of the minor, as guardian ad litem of such minor." Evidently it was discretionary on the part of the learned Member to appoint a guardian on behalf of a minor. It appears that the father of the appellant knew that his minor son, appellant herein had been impleaded in the revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, and as a matter of fact a power of attorney had also been filed on behalf of the said minor. It was found that the lather was representing his son as in Consolidation proceeding as natural guardian. It appears further that as a result of the adjustments order by the learned Member practically the entire land that had been originally owned and possessed by the appellant prior to the consolidation proceeding had been returned to him, and respondent Sohna had been given the lance which he had purchased from its original land‑lord. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has conceded this position. In these circumstances we do not think that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant nor his land was affected by the consolidation scheme. The order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vas not incompetent or without lawful authority. Rule 25 is merely discretion cry and if the learned Member was satisfied that the appellant was properly represented and his case did not go by default the matter rested there Even on merit as has been noticed above, the appellant has not suffered any harm. We, therefore, do not think that it is a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed, but without, any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed