1989 PLP 44 (CLC)

A.W. Butt for Petitioners. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1988. This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consoli dation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, against the order dated 24‑4‑1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Bahawalpur, whereby revision petition of the respondent was accepted.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 29‑6‑1985. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector against the confirmation order. It was dismissed. Then the respondent filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who accepted it through impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the parties. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of revision petition filed by the respondent before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Bahawalpur, the petitioners filed transfer application in this case before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member (Consolidation) vide his order dated 26‑4‑1987 stayed the proceedings. The petitioner intimated the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) regarding the issuance of Stay Order through telegram. On the next date 27‑4‑1988 the petitioners also filed an application before him but he ignored the stay order and disposed of the revision petition. The learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) consequently accepted the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the stay order issued by the Member (Consolidation), became effective from the time and date it was passed and the proceedings thereafter by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) were a nullity in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on 1983 S C M R 869 and 1981 CLC 501.

4. Since a very valid question of law has been raised in respect of the proceedings taken by Additional Commissioner (Cons.) after the issuance of the stay order by the learned Member (Consolidation) it is desirable that, this issue must be disposed of before proceeding further. The versions of the petitioners have already been stated above. The case of the respondent is that the stay order was not submitted before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.). Hence he was justified in proceeding with and deciding the case.

5. It may be mentioned here that it has been held by Lahore High Court in case Mussarat Tahira v. Muhammad Yaqoob reported in 1981 C L C 501 that: "Stay Order takes effect as soon as passed and proceedings taken in case after date of such order are null and void. It has also been laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Hap Abdul Jaleel v. Javid Ahmed 1983 S C M R 869 that "Stay Order takes effect from the time it is passed irrespective of the fact whether or not it has been served on the person concerned".

6. In view of the rule laid down in above‑mentioned cases it is obvious that after the issue of the stay order on 26‑4‑1987 which had become effective from the date of issue, the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had ceased to have jurisdiction to proceed with B the case. The proceedings taken. by him on 27‑4‑1987 in the shape of passing the impugned order are therefore null and void. 1, therefore, set aside the impugned order being coram non judice and remand the case to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Bahawalpur for fresh order on merits after hearing both the parties. A. A./292/R Case remanded.