The petitioner has challenged the vires of order of Respondent No, 1 dated 17.6.2004 through this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits the consolidation scheme in the village in question, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 15.11.1983 under Section 10(3) of the Consolidation Ordinance, 1960, which was subsequently, set-aside vide order dated 29,11,1990 by the Additional commission (Consolidation), The Member Board of Pevenue received report on 10.8.2003 from the D.D.O. (Consolidation), wherein he has pointed out irregularity and illegality in the said scheme with the prayer to initiate proceedings by M.B.R. exercising power of review in suo-moto. The Member Board of Revenue accepted the same vide order dated 17.6.2004. He further submits that none of the land owners of the village in-question has challenged the vires of order dated 29.11.1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). He further submits that the impugned order does not contain any reason. He further submits that the impugned order was passed by the M.B.R. without issuance of any notice to the land owners of the village in-question, therefore, the same is hit by the principle of natural justice.
2. The learned law office entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the M.B.R. has passed the impugned order while exercising power of review under the suo-moto, therefore, there is no necessity to issue any notice to any land owner of the village in-question. He further submits that the M.B.R. has initiated proceedings on the report of D.D.O. (Consolidation). He further submits that the matter pertains to the satisfaction of M.B.R. who has decided the matter after judicial application of mind, therefore, the impugned order is valid in the eye of law.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological orders to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(i) The scheme in the village in-question was confirmed on 15 1.1983, which has been set-aside by the Addl. Cots missioner (Consolidation) vide order dated 29.11.1990.
(ii) The order of the Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation) was not challenged by any of the land owners of the village in-question before any higher authority.
(iii) The Member Board of Revenue has received report dated 16.8.2003 from the Deputy District Officer (Consolidation) and passed the impugned order on 17.6.2004.
In case, the aforesaid facts are put in juxta position, then it is evident that the Member Board of Revenue has initiated proceedings on the report without notice to any of the persons, who would be aggrieved by his order. It is settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute until and unless, it is prohibited by wording of statute itself, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Fazal- ur-Rehman" (PLD 1964 'S.C. 410). The impugned order it self reveals that the same was passed by M.B.R. without notice to the petitioner or other land owners of the village in-question; therefore, the same is hit by principle of natural justice as perprinciple laid down in the following judgments:-- Zakir Ahmad vs. University of Dhacca" (PLD 1965 S.C. 90): "Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. vs. Inquiry Officer" (1983 S.C.M.R. 1208); "Pakistan, etc. vs. Public-at-large, etc." (PLD 1987 S,C. 304);
5. The Member Board of Revenue has counter-signed the report of the Deity District Officer (Consolidation), which is not application of mind, therefore, the impugned order is not in consonance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgment:-- Mollah Ejahar Ali vs. Government of East Pakistan, etc." (PLD 1970 S.C. 173).
"Gouranga Mohsin Sikdar vs. Controller Import & Export others" (PLD 1970 S.C. 158).
"Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, etc." (PLD 1964 S.C. 829).
The impugned order itself reveals that the impugned order was passed as mentioned above, by the M.B.R. by counter singing the report of D.D.O. (Consolidation), therefore, it is not in consonance with Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act is procedural in nature; therefore, it has retrospective effect, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Zainyar Khan's case". (1998 S.C.M.R. 2419). According to mandate of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, it is the duty cast upon the M.B.R. to decide the controversy between the parties after "application of mind, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "M/s. Airport Support Service's case: (1998' S.C.M.R. 2268).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set-aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Member Board of Revenue, in his office at 11.00 a.m. on 9.5.2005, who is directed to proceed in the matter after notice to all the concerned parties under the scheme and decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.