CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:-
(i) W.P. No. 13965/2004;
(ii) W.P. No. 13966/2004.
2. The brief facts out of which the aforesaid writ petitions arise are that the petitioners challenged the vires of the orders of the Member Board of Revenue dated 7.7.2004 wherein the Member Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners before him vide two separate orders dated 7.7.2004.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the impugned orders dated 7.7.2004 were passed by the Member Board of Revenue without application of mind and the appeals filed by respondents before the Additional Commissioner Revenue were highly the-barred but his fact was not considered by the Tribunal below. He further urges that the Member Board of Revenue noted the contentions of the petitioners in para 5 of the impugned orders but did not consider the pleas raised by the petitioners before Member Board of Revenue in operative parts para 12 of the impugned order, in support of his contention, he relied upon Inayat Ullah and 22 others vs. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (PLJ 2001 Lahore 793).
4. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioners have admitted the claim of the respondents as is evident from the grounds of appeal, which are at pages 45 to 50, therefore, the petitioners are estopped to agitate these matters before any higher forum on the well- known principle of estoppal and waiver. He further submits that the matter was patched up between the parties and the arbitrator was appointed by the competent authority under section 151 of the Land Revenue Act, on the basis of which Mutations Nos. 1168 and 1169 were sanctioned. Subsequently Mutations Nos. 1170, 1172 and 1174 were sanctioned on the same date i.e. 5.10.1972. He further urges that respondents were given land, which is situated in Khasra Nos. 2264, 2265, 2307, 7308, which was acquired by the WASA/LDA authorities. The compensation was also received by the respondents as is evident from the report of WASA which is at page 98 of the file. He further submits that the petitioners admitted that Mutation No. 331 of exchange was sanctioned on 31.12.1945, therefore, no injustice has been done with the petitioners and in fact substantial justice has been done to the parties and the revenue authorities have only corrected the mutations, therefore, question of limitation does not arise in these cases. Even otherwise, he submits that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in view of section 29 of the Limitation Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- Chief Administrator of Auqaf vs. Muhammad Ramzan and others (PLD 1991 S.C. 102); Government of Sind vs. Ch. Fazal Muhammad (PLD 1991 S.C. 197).
He further urges that this Court seldom interfere in the matter where the substantial justice has been provided to the aggrieved persons, in support of his contention, he relied upon Dilmir and others vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1991 Lahore 314).
5. The learned legal advisor of the WASA submits that matter is between the private parties and on the basis of the report, he submits that the land in question has been acquired by the WASA/LDA authorities. The compensation has already been paid by the WASA/LDA. Authorities to the respondents as is evidence from the report submitted by the WASA which is at page 98 of the file.
6. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that the General Attorney of one of the respondents Muhammad Bashir had given statement before the Addl. Commissioner on 14.6.1978 according to which he had no objection qua cancellation of Mutations Nos. 1168, 1169, 1171 and 1174 as is evident from the order of the Collector dated 29.10.1984. The learned counsel of the respondents at this juncture submits that it is wrongly mentioned as attorney of one of the respondents. The learned counsel of the petitioners further submits that review filed by the respondents against the order dated 29.10.1984 was also dismissed.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
8. Without adverting to the-contentions of the learned counsel of the parties, the operative parts para 12 of the impugned orders dated 7.7.2004 clearly show that the Member Board of Revenue has decided the revision petitions without application of mind, in case paras 5 to 10 be put in a juxta position then it is crystal clear that the Member Board of Revenue has passed the impugned orders without application of mind as mentioned above, which is condition precedent after addition of Section 24-A in the General Clauses Act and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. Airport Support Services vs. The Airport Manager (1998 SCMR 2268). it is pertinent to mention here that Section 24A is procedural in nature, therefore, it has retrospective effect as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Zain Yar Khan vs. The Chief Engineer (1998 SCMR 2419).
The Member Board of Revenue has decided the revision petitions of the petitioners by counter- signing the findings of the Addl. Commissioner Revenue as is evident from operative parts of the impugned orders vide para 12 which is not in consonance the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din's case (PLD 1964 S.C. 829). It is also admitted fact that Member Board of Revenue has decided the revision petitions of the petitioners in capacity of guss/-judicial Tribunal, therefore, it is duty and obligation of the Member Board of Revenue to decide the controversy between the parties after application of mind as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- Mollah Ejahar Ali vs. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 197 S.C. 173); Gouranga Mohan Sikdar vs. The Controller of Import and Export and 2 others (PLD 1970 S.C. 158).
It is also settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State as envisaged by Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. Member Board of Revenue as mentioned above, has decided the revision petitions of the petitioners in violation of the parameters prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, therefore, same are set aside. Meaning thereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before respondent No. 1 i.e. Member Board of Revenue. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 1 on 28.2.2005, who is directed to decide the revision petitions of the petitioners afresh after application of judicial mind without being influenced by observations of this Court, as expeditiously as possible.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petitions are accepted the impugned orders dated 7.7.2004 are set aside. Cases are remanded to the Member Board of Revenue to decide the cases afresh in aforesaid terms.