2000 PLP 1319 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2000 Order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore passed on 27‑7‑1987 dismissing a revision petition filed by Kalu Khan, petitioner, has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Briefly stated it has the following background.

2. Consolidation scheme of village Jandanwala was confirmed on 31‑12‑1981. Atta Muhammad, Matta and Haider sons of Muhammad filed an appeal there against which was dismissed by Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Mianwali on 16‑3‑1983. They filed a revision petition against the same, which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division on 19‑6‑1983 with certain adjustments in the Wandas of the parties. Ghulam Rasul, Ghulam Muhammad, Ghulam Ali and others filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the learned Member (Consolidation) on 15‑7‑1985 setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restoring that of the Collector (Consolidation). The said order is stated not to have been challenged any further. Matta, respondent No.3 herein, who had been a party in the earlier round of litigation which ended with the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 15‑7‑1985, again filed an appeal now impleading the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein alongwith some other persons, as respondents, against the order, dated 31‑12‑1981 of the Consolidation Officer, which was dismissed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector, Bhakkar on 1‑9‑1983. He filed a revision petition there against, which was accepted on 31‑12‑1983 by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, by which order the entitlement of the petitioner, herein, was adversely affected. The petitioner and respondent No.4 then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by Member (Judicial) on 27‑7‑1987, which order has been assailed through this petition.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that Matta, respondent No.3, who was a party in the earlier round of litigation, which matter concluded by order, dated 15‑7‑1985 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, could not re‑agitate the same matter by starting fresh proceedings and filing appeal, which was rightly dismissed by the. Collector. It is contended that the learned Additional Commissioner, as also the Board of Revenue, failed to apply their independent mind to the matter and their orders are totally illegal and without jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.3, Matta, has not entered appearance despite that his name appears in the cause list and intimation for today has also been sent by the office to the parties. 4‑A. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, however, entered appearance for the official respondents and has been heard. 5.???????? The perusal of the orders on record shows that the consolidation proceedings were challenged by respondent No.3 and his two brothers, namely, Atta.Muhammad and Haider, which matter concluded with the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 15‑7‑1985 when order; dated 19‑6‑1983 passed by the learned . Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha was set aside by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Prima facie, there appears substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after that the said order had attained finality no de novo proceedings could be initiated by Matta, respondent, and his appeal was rightly dismissed by the Collector, whereas the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has candidly submitted that this aspect has not been taken note of by the learned Member while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, the matter may be remitted to the Board of Revenue for hearing and decision of the revision petition afresh in accordance with law. Needless to observe that when a lis comes for adjudication before the Tribunal, the same should receive judicious application of mind and consideration in accordance with law. The order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, challenged through this petition, does not evince the application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case,' and the A revision .petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed without being conscious of the earlier round of litigation and the orders then passed. In these circumstances, the disposal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner cannot be considered as judicious and legal. The same needs to be heard and decided afresh by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. In view of the above, order, dated 27‑7‑1987 of the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, is declared illegal and of no legal effect. The revision petition filed by the petitioner and his brother shall be deemed to be A pending, which shall be heard and decided after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law. This petition is accepted in the above terms. ~ No order as to costs. H.B.T./K‑23/L Order accordingly.