P L D 1969 Karachi 1 (PLP)

QADEERUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, dated the 20th of December 1963, by which he allowed the first appeal of respondent No. 1, and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, decreed the suit of the respondent.

2. The facts which form the background as stated by counsel for the parties, are that the appellant and the respondent are two Co‑operative Housing Societies, who applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, for allotment of land for the benefit of their members. The Deputy Commissioner allotted 39 acres and 29 ghuntas to the respondent on the 3rd of April 1957 and 54 acres to the appellant on the 4th of November 1957. Counsel say that the parties paid the price of the land but the respondent felt that it was in need of more land, because its membership was large. An application was, therefore, made by it to the Commissioner for this purpose. It was accepted by him on the 26th of June, 1958. He increased the area of land allotted to the respondent by 10 acres, 14 ghuntas, and reduced this area from the plot of land that was allotted to the appellant. Counsel for the respondent says that in pursuance of this order, the respondent paid additional price to the Government and completed the formalities, with the result that a sanad was issued in its favour on the 4th of August 1959. The appellant was not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, therefore a revision was preferred by it to the Board of Revenue, which accepted it on the 16th of December 1959. The result was that the area of the appellant, which was reduced, was made up to the former measurement. The respondent felt dissatisfied with this decision therefore, it made an application for review of the order, which was dismissed on the 24th of October 1960.

3. Having failed on the Revenue side, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit on the regular civil side, for a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 16th of December 1959 and confirmed by the order made in review on the 24th of October 1960 was illegal, , and i for an injunction against the present appellant, to restrain it 'from claiming or enjoying the 10 acres and 14 ghuntas which were given back to the appellant by the Board of Revenue. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on the 30th of November 1961. The respondent, there fore, went in appeal, which was accepted on the 20th of December 1963.

4. The judgment shows that the first appellate Court took the view that the order of the Commissioner, dated the 26th of June 1958, having been acted upon by the issuance of a sanad dated the 8th of August 1959, it had become inviolable and final; there fore, the Board of Revenue could not interfere with it. It had no jurisdiction to do so. Counsel for respondent No. 1 has tried to support his view of the first appellate court by referring to the decisions of the Bombay High Court, and by arguing that an order in pursuance of which a sanad issued becomes final and cannot be set aside or modified in appeal or revision. The underlying idea of this argument is that a sanad become an independent document, and cannot be affected by an order made in appeal or revision preferred from the order in pursuance of which it is issued. This view of law had prevailed before the decision given by this Court in Province West Pakistan v. Haji Mohd. Juman and another (P L D 1960 Kar. 908), Abdul Ghafar and others v. Government of West Pakistan and others (P L D 1963 Kar. 215), Noor Mohd. v. Chief Commissioner, Karachi (P L D 1965 Kar. 17). The view which prevails now is that an order which is appealable or revisable, does not cease to be so merely because it has been acted upon, and a document has been issued in pursuance of it. Such a document ‑Kay have the appearance of being independent, but its existence depends upon the order in pursuance of which it is issued. When the order is modified or set aside in appeal or revision, the document cannot exist independently. It is not correct to spry that owing to the issuance of the sanad the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue was lost to revise the order of the Commissioner.

5. We accordingly accept this appeal set aside the order of the Additional District Judge, Nawabshah dated the 20th of December 1963, and dismiss the suit of respondent No. 1 with costs to the defendants, one of whom is the appellant and the other respondent No. 2 in these proceedings. The appellant will get the costs of this appeal from respondent No.

1. Appeal accepted.