2006 PLP 1666 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant constitutional petition challenged the judgment/order dated 9-8-2004 passed by the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby review petition filed by respondent No.4 was accepted and by setting aside the revisional judgment dated 24-12-2001, case was remanded to the D.O. (R ), Bhakkar, for fresh decision.

2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that Fazal Karim father of the petitioner was appointed as "Lamberdar" of Chak No.46-DB, Tehsil Kaloor Kot, and District Bhakkar in the year 1952-53 who died on 8-1-1999. The petitioner claimed that in life time of his father he was appointed as Caretaker (Sarbrah) "Lamberdar" vide order dated 30-7-1986 by the then Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar and according to him, there had been no complaint against him.

3. Petitioner moved an application for his appointment as regular "Lamberdar" to the then D.C./Collector, where his candidature amongst respondent No.4 and others was considered and his application was dismissed vide order dated 20-6-2000and respondent No.4 was appointed as "Lamberdar" of the Chak in question.

4. Petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 20-6-2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bhakkar, filed an appeal before the then Commissioner, Sargodha, where he succeeded as his appeal was accepted on 14-11-2000 and the appointment was directed to be re-examined, keeping in view the majority of "Baradari" in the Mauzia. Petitioner was not satisfied with the view taken by the Commissioner hence he filed a Revision Petition (R.O.R. No.64 of 2001) in the Office of the Board of Revenue whereas respondent No.4 also filed a counter Revision Petition (R.O.R. No.2429 of 2000). Both these revision petitions were disposed of through a single order dated 24-12-2001 whereby petitioner's revision petition was accepted whereas the other filed by respondent No.4 was dismissed.

5. Respondent No.4 thereafter, filed Review Petition No.57 of 2002 in (R.O.R. 2429 of 2000) and the learned Senior Member, Board of Revenue, through his order dated 9-1-2004 accepted the review petition and remanded the case, as noted above.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 did not file any review petition in R.O.R. 64 of 2001 which was accepted in favour of the petitioner and instead he filed only one review petition in his own Revision Petition (R.O.R. No.2429 of 2000), allowing the order dated 24-12-2001 intact to the extent of respondent No.4. Besides it, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, while accepting the review petition and remanding the case, was solely impressed by the report of E.D.O. (R), Bhakkar dated 24-12-2001, detail of which was not mentioned in the impugned order and in the light of the same, the case was required to be decided afresh.

7. Law regarding remand of the cases is firmly settled by this time to the effect that unnecessary remand of case should be avoided. It is to the knowledge of even a layman that protracted litigations involves not only public exchequer but also result in wastage of public time of the Presiding Officer and that of the litigants. Petty dispute of appointment of "Lamberdar" still awaits final decision in spite of lapse of about two decades and in such circumstances remand of case was not in the interest of any of the parties, that is why the learned counsel for respondent No.4 did not oppose acceptance of instant constitutional petition and remittance of the matter to respondent No.1 again with a direction to consider the report of E.D.O. (R), Bhakkar dated 24-12-2001 himself and to pass some final order. Record revealed that exercise sought to be done from the D.O. (R) in presence of order in R.O.R. 64 of 2001, could have been done by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, himself and parties should not have been thrown to face protracted litigation for another period of two decades.

8. For the reasons noted above, the impugned order dated 9-8-2004 passed by respondent No.1 being tainted with patent illegality is declared to be void and non-existent in the eye of law by accepting instant constitutional petition, with the result that Review Petition No.57 of 2002 filed by respondent No.4 shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No.1 and shall be decided afresh in the light of the observations made above, on its own merits, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 3-5-2006. There will be no order as to costs. S.A.K./S-76/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.