P L D 1989 Lahore 531 (PLP)

These two writ petitions (W.P.No.3784/87 and W.P.No.3785/87) are by a brother and sister and are being disposed of together.

2. The principal grievance is that the Member Board of Revenue had without due application of his own mind endorsed the "dishonest" finding of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala whereby he held that Khasra Nos.147, 163 and 164 constituted previous holding of Muhammad Tufail son of Lal Din who is a former Patwari of the Consolidation Department.

3. I sent for a factual report from the Add1.D.C. (Consolidation), Sialkot Mr. Shamsher Abbas Bokhari Consolidation Officer also appeared with the record. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) in his report dated 9‑9‑1987 submitted to this Court had disclosed that new Khasra No.147 which describes old Khasra No.154 measuring 4 Kanals had been shared amongst the shareholders Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Irshad and Mohammad Idrees sons of Ibrahim in equal share (4/5) and the rest was given to the persons whose names are given in reply to ground (f) of parawise comments. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Mohammad Tufail son of Lal Din who is a former Patwari of the Consolidation Department figures nowhere in respect of the three khasra numbers. According to him, therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) has made an obliging order in favour of a departmental subordinate. The second ground being urged is that the grievance, if at all, was that of sons of Ibrahim but they never agitated the matter and instead the said Mohammad Tufail son of Lal Din took over taking advantage of similarity of names and also of being Patwari. He had no locus standi of his own and on no discoverable legal principle such a person could carry on litigation on behalf of third persons, grievances which those persons had themselves waived. The principal complaint of the petitioner before this Court is that despite a specific point raised before the Member Board of Revenue, he could not have blindly endorsed the finding affecting the petitioner without naving made visible effort on his part to reach the truth to fulfil judicial or quasi‑judicial requirements. A case of clear misreading has been made out. None has appeared on behalf of respondents despite several calls. It is now 1‑07 p.m. They are proceeded against ex parte.

4. A misreading of the record clearly vitiates the proceedings and I need not cite any authority on the point. The failure on the part of a statutory functionary to make a visible effort to objectively ascertain the facts or to strive in search of truth for dispensing justice would tantamount to failure to exercise jurisdiction in the eyes of law.

5. In such a situation, I remand the case to the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue for proper disposal in accordance with law after due application of his mind to the facts, record and the pleas of the parties raised before him. I must observe before parting with these cases that valuable rights of people should not be decided on hazy notions. The purpose of the consolidation of holdings must be kept in view and surely this law is not an instrument for depriving the people of their property rights and to dole it away in favour of any other undeserving person by the functionaries under the statute at their whim or according to their fancy. Such a course if followed will amount to clear excess and abuse of jurisdiction which must be deprecated. In view of the fact that nobody has come forward to oppose these writ petitions, there shall be no order as to costs. The appropriate Member,Board of Revenue will decide this matter within six months of the receipt of this order. A.A./A‑705/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.