1999 PLP 1048 (MLD)

4-4-1987. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate, learned counsel contends that after the consolidation scheme had been confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, on 31-3-1981 and after that appellate and revisional Courts declined to interfere in the said scheme vide their respective orders dated 29-8-1983 and 13-5-1984, the matter could further be re-opened only in the exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Authorities under the said Ordinance. Learned counsel further contends that even efforts for suo motu revision failed vide order dated 21-7-1986 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Gujranwala.

2. The precise contention of the learned counsel is that taking up of fresh proceedings by respondent No. 1 on a direction from the Board of Revenue, purely on the executive side, is an effort to resurrect the matter already concluded on the judicial side, contrary to law. Reliance has been placed on Commissioner of Income Tax East Pakistan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman (PLD 1984 SC 410).

3. The question raised requires consolidation. Admit. Notice.

4. Implementation of the impugned order dated 24-12-1986 is suspended in the meanwhile subject to notice for an early date. C. M. No. 1 of 1987

5. Learned counsel shall file the certified copies of Annexures 'B' and 'C' within a month. The C.M. is disposed of. JUDGE,

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no case for exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction was made out by Noor Muhammad respondent No.2 as the consolidation scheme already finalized, had been upheld in judicial proceedings and it could not be set aside on the executive directive of Minister (Consolidation). On the other hand, Mrs. Nasira Iqbal, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents had vehemently urged that since gross irregularities had been committed in the earlier sanctioned consolidation scheme, the Additional Commissioner was justified, on the directive of Board of Revenue, to undo it under section 13 of the Ordinance. It is also urged that the majority of the landowners in the village appeared before the Additional Commissioner and gave vent to their grievances about the disputed scheme, and therefore, the only feasible and equitable way to meet this situation was to scrap the old scheme and initiate proceedings for de novo consolidation in the village. She placed reliance on" Muhammad Nawaz. v. Sardar Khan and others (1985 CLC 796), Ghulam Nabi v. Member, Board of Revenue and others. (NLR 1980 SCJ 237), unreported cases (NLR 1980 UC 13) and Rab Nawaz and 8 others v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1984 Lahore 244).

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed at the bar and perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and reached the conclusion that this writ petition merits acceptance. Undisputedly, respondent No.2 had lost upto the level of Board of Revenue on the judicial side, in his bid to find fault with the approved scheme of consolidation (Annexure A). As many as 26 other landowners, feeling aggrieved like him, sought their legal remedies before different forums under the Ordinance and the matters were disposed of on merits. These orders have been implemented/acted upon not only in the record but also at the spot. It is not the case of the respondents that Scheme confirmed as early as on 31-3-1981 had so far not been given full effect to in the record/spot. Possessions had changed hands whereafter the new transferees must have developed their lands/effected improvements.

7. Respondent No.2, despite all the above legal developments and physical changes on the ground sought annulment of the whole scheme by approaching Additional Commissioner for" suo motu" revision of the scheme who declined to interfere vide order dated 21-7-1986. That should have been considered enough by respondent No.2. However, that was not to be, He, thereafter sought political interference in the matter by approaching minister for consolidation through an application by and misstated the facts that the Additional Commissioner was dragging his feet in the matter despite a directive by M.B.R. to undo the consolidation scheme, (though no such directive had in fact been issued by M.B.R). He posed to be the spokesman of the village community despite the fact that there was no such authorisation in his favour. It is in these circumstances, that by exercising political clout he obtained "order" from Minister (Consolidation) to Additional Commissioner to implement the" decision" of M.B.R. It may be seen that under the scheme of the Ordinance the minister does not figure any where in consolidation matter.

8. It was in fact the duty of Additional Commissioner to ignore the illegal order/directive of the minister. In any case, he should have taken pains to first ascertain as to whether or not in reality M.B.R. had passed any order, as alleged in the directive of the minister. He acted in utter disregard of the factual position that the Additional Commissioner, after taking stock of the whole situation had already declined to interfere vide order dated 21-7-1986 (Annexure C). He launched himself into this so-called suo motu exercise of jurisdiction with the result that the whole village was put into a state of turmoil all over again. Even those who felt content with their wandas under the originally approved scheme started to have second thoughts and with a view to try to get a better deal this time made hue and cry about the alleged irregularities in the said scheme. It may be noticed that apart from Noor Ahmad 26 others landowners whose appeals against original scheme had been dismissed were agitating for exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. See order of Additional Commissioner dated 21-7-1986 (Annexure C).

9. Law decisively leans in favour of finality of legal proceedings as otherwise Pandora's box would be opened every now and then resulting in endless misery to the litigants. It is clear that a matter which has attained finality in consequence of judicial proceedings cannot be permitted to be re-opened though fiat of executive authority as it would irreparably erode the confidence of public at large in the concept of role of law, enshrined in the constitution, besides leading to unending and painful complications for the parties to the lis. See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fazal-ur-Rehman (PLD 1984 SC 410). Also see Chutten and others v. Sufaid Khan and others (1987 SCMR 503). This situation has, unfortunately, arisen in the instant case due to the illegal action on the part of Additional Commissioner, who acted on the ipsi-dixit of respondent No.2, without caring to verify the-factual position. All the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for respondents are distinguishable on the facts of the instant case. In the circumstances, it is wholly unnecessary to advert to the factual pleas of the respondents that majority of land owners were desirous of fresh scheme and/or that the original scheme was defective/irregular.

10. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 24-12-1986 and the proceedings being taken thereunder are declared to be without lawful authority with the result that the originally approved consolidation scheme dated 31-3-1981 shall hold the field. The petitioners are entitled to costs. H.B.T./M-777/L Petition accepted.