2003 PLP 1699 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioners seek the grant of leave against order, dated 5-3-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby their Writ Petition No.2279 of 1991 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the Scheme for the Consolidation of land holdings of village Fattah Thatta, Tehsil Nakana Sahib, District Sheikhupura was confirmed on 30-9-1977 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under the provisions of subsection (3) of section 10 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Lahore Division, Lahore by his order, dated 8-8-1995 directed for a fresh Consolidation Scheme. The Consolidation Officer by order, dated 30-6-1987 confirmed the fresh scheme for consolidation of land holdings of the village. No formal appeal or revision was filed against the said order, dated 30-6-1987 to any of the statutory functionaries. However, the petitioners moved an application, dated 8-9-1997 to the Minister for Revenue, Punjab, who transmitted the same to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division which was accepted by him by order, dated 20-10-1987. The private respondents challanged the order, dated 20-10-1987 before the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab by way of revision petition. The same was accepted by order, dated 20-2-1991. Consequently, the order, dated 20-10-1987 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was set aside and the order, dated 30-6-1987 of the confirmation of Consolidation Scheme by the Consolidation Officer was restored. The Writ Petition No.2279 of 1991 of the petitioners was also dismissed by the Lahore High Court by the impugned judgment, dated 5-3-1999.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was no material before the Lahore High. Court for holding that the order, dated 20-10-1987 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was one-sided and that the petitioners were backed by the then Revenue Minister. It was further submitted that the Additional Commissioner had passed just and fair order by setting aside the order, dated 30-6-1987 of the confirmation of Consolidation Scheme by the Consolidation Officer to which no exception could be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting private respondents argued that the order, dated 30-6-1987 of the confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme passed by the Consolidation Officer had attained finality and no appeal or revision was filed under the statute to call in question the validity thereof. Instead, the petitioners applied the political pressure through the Minister for Revenue, Punjab for getting the consolidation of land holdings annulled through the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) by order, dated 20-10-1987 which was mala fide and biased.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The fresh Consolidation Scheme of the village was prepared and confirmed by the Consolidation Officer against which the petitioners did not file any appeal or revision as provided by law. The Minister for Revenue was not empowered under the provisions of Punjab Consolidation of B Holdings Ordinance, 1960 to interfere with the confirmation of Consolidation Scheme. Similarly, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) had no jurisdiction to annul the confirmation of Consolidation Scheme by acting in an administrative capacity pursuant to the directions of the Minister for Revenue and that too without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected persons including contesting respondents. Even the record of the Subordinate Consolidation Authorities relating to the preparation and confirmation of scheme had not been summoned and examined by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). The overwhelming majority of the right holders was seemingly satisfied as only 167 out of 718 right holders had apparently approached the Minister for Revenue and the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). The Lahore High Court has justifiably declined to interfere with order, dated 20-2-1991 passed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue. This is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal as no substantial question of law of public importance is involved.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. S.A.K./K-64/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.