1991 PLP 2365 (MLD)

Mian Nisar Ahmad for Respondent No.8. Date of hearing: 19th May, 1991. The dispute in this petition arises out of a consolidation matter. It appears that the Consolidation Scheme of Village Chak Ghazi Tehsil Hafizabad District Gujranwala was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Ordinance, 1960 on 28th of January, 1968. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 filed an appeal before the Collector against this order of the Consolidation Officer which was rejected on 28th of June, 1971. Still feeling aggrieved, these respondents went in revision to the Additional Commissioner who vide his order dated 4th of July, 1973 remanded the case to the Collector with certain directions.

2. In the post remand proceedings the matter was decided by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). Respondent No.8 Muhammad Sharif felt dissatisfied with this order and went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gujranwala who on 26-11-1986 accepted the same and restored the original consolidation scheme. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 thereupon filed a revision before the Member, Board of Revenue which was allowed by a Member of the Board vide his order dated 28th of March, 1988 which has been assailed in this Constitutional petition. 2-A. Malik Saeed Hassan, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not heard' by the Member, Board of Revenue, who proceeded to pass the impugned order in their absence without ascertaining as to whether the petitioners had really been served. The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that although the area granted to the petitioners in the Consolidation Scheme was more than what was originally held by the petitioners but the Member, Board of Revenue has completely failed to consider that the increase was due to the inferior quality of the land which was granted to the petitioners in lieu of class 1 which he had to surrender.

3. Mian Nisar Ahmad, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 candidly conceded the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the matter may be remanded to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh of the revision filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7.

4. From a perusal of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue it is quite evident that it was never ascertained as to whether the petitioners who were respondents Nos.7 and 8 before the Board of Revenue have been served in accordance with law. It is axiomatic that a person can be proceeded against ex-parte only if he had been duly served and not otherwise.

5. There is also merit in the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Member in his impugned order did not advert his attention to the classification of the land originally held by the petitioners and of the land granted to them in consolidation. The result is that the petition succeeds to the extent that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 28th of March, 1988 is declared to be without lawful authority with the result that the revision filed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 shall be treated as pending before the Board of Revenue and shall be decided afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-3054/L Petition accepted.