1992 PLP 455 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1991. This Constitutional petition is directed against the order of the learned Member (Judicial), Board of‑Revenue, Punjab, dated 27‑7‑1987, whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by the respondents and remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Sheikhupura, with the direction that the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore Division, dated 8th January 1984 be complied with strictly.

2. Facts forming the background of this petition, briefly stated,, are that the Consolidation Scheme of village Kalia, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. was confirmed on 30‑9‑1980. However, before the Jadeed Record could be completed consolidation‑‑record was set at fire by some unknown persons. Matter was reported to the Board of Revenue which directed the Collector (Cons.), Sheikhupura, to get the fresh record prepared under his supervision. In compliance with this direction, the Consolidation Officer prepared the fresh record, which the Board of Revenue summoned and after examining it found that numerous illegalities were committed in the preparation of the record. Learned Member (Cons.), therefore, by his order dated 27‑11‑1981, directed the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to annul the Consolidation Scheme in the village in exercise of his, suo motu revisional powers and direct the Collector (Cons.), Sheikhupura, to prepare a fresh Scheme and confirm it under section 10 (4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. In compliance with this order, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) annulled the Consolidation Scheme of the village and directed the A.D.C. (Cons), Sheikhupura, to prepare a fresh Scheme and confirm it under section 10 (4) of the Ordinance. This was vide order dated 8‑1‑1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner.

3. Notwithstanding the afore‑mentioned order/direction of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), the Consolidation Scheme of the village was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer under section 10 (3) of the Ordinance by his order dated 30‑9‑1984.

4. It is admitted by both the learned counsel that against the afore mentioned order of the Consolidation Officer, seven/eight appeals were filed by the affected right‑holders before the A.D.C. (Cons.), Sheikhupura. Respondents herein, 123 in number, also brought an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer directly before the Additional Commissioner. The appellants before the Additional Commissioner included those who had preferred individual appeals before the A.D.C. (Cons.). The Additional Commissioner, by his order dated 16th March 1986, kept the appeal of the respondents pending to await the order of the Board of Revenue in some miscellaneous applications moved by some of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved with this action/order of the Additional Commissioner, respondents brought the matter in revision before the Board of Revenue praying that, "full record be summoned, revision petition of the petitioners be accepted and the consolidation proceedings of village Kalia, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura may please be annulled as these proceedings have been taken in violation of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the learned Additional Commissioner (C) dated 8‑1‑1984 and the respondents be directed to confirm the scheme under section 10 (4) as directed by the learned Additional Commissioner and this hon'ble Court." The revision petition was admittedly filed only against the official respondents and none of the present petitioners was impleaded as a party therein. Perusal of the record summoned from the Board of Revenue, however, shows that eighteen persons from amongst the present petitioners appeared before the Member, Board of Revenue, and made an application for being impleaded as a party but no order was passed on that application. Be that as it may, both the learned counsel admit that these eighteen persons were represented by Ch. Khurshid Alam Cheema, Advocate. These eighteen persons are petitioners Nos.2, 5, 7, 24, 28, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 60, 61, 68, 71, 74, 76 and 81.

5. Learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue., by his order dated 27‑7‑1987, after hearing the respondents (petitioners before him), and the aforementioned eighteen persons from amongst the petitioners and perusing relevant record, came to the conclusion "Now the consolidation scheme of the village has reportedly been confirmed under section 10 (3) by the Consolidation Officer, which is in violation of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore Division, Lahore. The orders of the Higher Authorities should have been complied with strictly by the lower Courts, but they did not care for it, which is not appreciable." The learned Member accordingly accepted the revision petition and by order dated 27‑7‑1987 remanded the case to the A.D.C. (Cons.) with the direction to comply with the aforementioned order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 8‑1‑1984. This order of the learned Member is under challenge in this Constitutional petition. 6, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that out of 248 landowners of the village, only 12 persons had preferred the revision petition before the Board of Revenue and they did not implead any other landowner of the village, with the result that the petitioners, except the aforenoted 18 persons, were not heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel does not deny that the fresh Consolidation Scheme was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer under section 10 (3) which undoubtedly was not in consonance with the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 8‑1‑1984, but he contends that the Scheme so confirmed by the Consolidation Officer had the blessings/approval of the A.D.C. (C) and as such the order of the Additional Commissioner was substantially complied with. Submission of the learned counsel is that if the learned Member, Board of Revenue, had afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, they could have persuaded him that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference was called for with the fresh Scheme confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, particularly when those who were really affected by the Scheme in question had already preferred regular appeals before the A.D.C. (C) and further that even the appeal preferred by the respondents before the Additional Commissioner was still pending before him and they should have pressed that appeal. Be that as it may, since the impugned order was admittedly passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, without hearing the petitioners except the aforementioned eighteen persons, it merits to be struck down on this short ground.

7. In view of what has been said above, writ petition is allowed, impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, is set aside and the case remanded to him for passing fresh orders after hearing the parties herein as also all others concerned/interested in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Member‑I (Judicial), Board of Revenue (who, I am told, is the successor of the learned Member who passed the impugned order) on 29‑7‑1991. There will be no order as to costs. AA./A‑1383/L Case remanded.