1989 PLP 3485 (MLD)

Muhammad Arif and M. Saleem Zeervi for Petitioners. Muhammad Shafi and Ch. Azimud Din for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th March, 1982. The present writ petition has arisen out of consolidation proceedings which were conducted in village Rai, Tehsil and district Lahore. The consolidation Scheme was sanctioned as early as 26‑3‑1962 but the matter has not been concluded so far, as the record of consolidation proceedings was misplaced at some stage which led to the registration of a case with the police. Against the scheme itself twenty‑one appeals were filed which were accepted on 4‑2‑1963 by the Additional Commissioner who remanded the case back to the Additional Deputy Commissioner for fresh consolidation of the whole village. On further revision to the Board of Revenue it was directed that the twenty‑one appeals may be decided afresh individually and for that purpose the case was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner. On 21‑5‑1965 the Additional Commissioner rejected fourteen appeals and directed certain adjustments in the Khata in respect of seven appeals. A revision petition against this order was dismissed‑by the Board of Revenue on 3‑8‑1967. The matter stopped there as the record had been misplaced in the meantime. After that the right‑holders in the village, have been competing with each other. One group wanted altogether fresh consolidation in the village while other was satisfied with the consolidation operation and asked for the reconstruction of the record.

2. On 6‑12‑1967 the Additional Commissioner directed that the record should be reconstructed but the Additional Deputy Commissioner on a miscellaneous application ordered on 31‑12‑1968 for fresh consolidation in the village. This order was challenged again in the Board of Revenue and Mr. Hassan Turab Ali, learned Member rejected the plea of reconsolidation in the village and directed that the record be reconstructed as early as possible. At this stage writ petition No. 1480/69 was moved in the High Court seeking a fresh consolidation and setting aside of the orders of 12‑8‑1969. This writ petition was, however, withdrawn on 14‑1‑1972 in order to pursue the remedy in the Board of Revenue. Haji Ali Akbar, etc. then filed a review petition in the Board of Revenue in which Sufaid Khan, one of the present writ petitioners was cited as a respondent. This petition was rejected by Mr. Masrur Hassan Khan, the learned Member (Consolidation) on 29‑4‑1972 who again ordered for reconstruction of the record. The matter rested there for good five years until on 6‑6‑1977 on the administrative side a new order was passed by the Board of Revenue directing the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Con.) to start consolidation operation afresh in the village. This order has been challenged now in the present writ petition. 3. 1t has been prayed that orders of 6‑6‑1977 be set aside as the Board of Revenue had no authority to pass such an order on the administrative side in the face of a large number of judicial decisions to the contrary. In the alternative it has been argued that even if the Board had the powers the order was bad as it has been passed without giving proper hearing to the petitioners and without taking into account the fact that the record had already been reconstructed and there was no occasion or justification for ordering a fresh consolidation in the village.

4. As far as the question` of reconstruction of the record is concerned, the learned counsel has shown a report of the Consolidation Officer of 3‑2‑1980 to the effect that the record has been reconstructed. It was presumably reconstructed long ago because in the course of Writ Petition No. 1480 of 1969 it had been submitted by Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate on 14‑1‑1972 that the record had been reconstructed. Even the impugned order of 6‑6‑1977 gives an indication that the record has been prepared although it was not considered proper to proceed further on the basis of that record as it was of a dubious and A unreliable nature. There is no doubt, therefore, that the record has been reconstructed. How good it is, however, is a different matter and by itself cannot be a justification for ordering a fresh consolidation. Regarding the record yet another report submitted by the Consolidation Officer in August, 1980 to the Board of Revenue has been shown by the learned counsel for the State. According to this report while the Consolidation Officer is not entirely happy with the reconstructed record yet he feels that it can be improved upon to the satisfaction of all concerned after the decision of the present writ petition. 1t is, therefore, not correct that the reconstructed record cannot be the proper basis' for proceeding further with the consolidation proceedings which had been concluded in 1962.

5. The question of the powers of the Board of Revenue of ordering a fresh consolidation came up for considerable discussion. It is true that the Board of Revenue acts in a dual capacity. On the administrative side, it controls the consolidation proceedings and on the judicial side it deals with the matters arising out of it. But once a matter has been decided on the judicial side, the exercise of executive authority to nullify the effect of judicial decisions will be an improper exercise of authority. Nullifying the effect of judicial decisions even by legislative' process has never received a universal backing although it is not unknown to our system of law and examples of this can be found in our legislative history but j revoking of a judicial decision by an administrative process is certainly something new and cannot be approved of.

6. In view of the above consideration, the orders passed by the Board of! C Revenue on 6‑6‑1977 have no legal sanction behind them. They are, therefore, y declared to be of no legal effect. The writ petition is allowed with costs. M.Y.H./S‑517/L Petition accepted.