' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- We intend to decide the captioned appeals/petitions by one consolidated judgment having similar facts and law arising out of the same notification dated 6-12-1995. The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment of the learned High Court.
However, necessary facts out of which the aforesaid appeal (C.A. No,1847 of 1998) arises are that Board of Revenue, Balochistan, under section 40(1) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 directed that resettlement of Quetta Tehsil except Quetta Town be carried out and record of its rights be revised with immediate effect vide gazette notification dated 8-11-1987. Board of Revenue, Balochistan, under section 116(1) of the Balochistan Revenue Act, 1967 directed that survey and settlement of unmeasured (barren) land in Quetta District be carried out and record of rights prepared accordingly vide notification dated 16-12-1991. Board of Revenue had withdrawn notification dated 16-12-1991 vide notification dated 12-11-1992 and also directed vide said notification that the Settlement Officer, Quetta be carried out on the settlement under section 40 of Land Revenue Act as already directed vide notification dated 8-11-1987. The Government received various complaints regarding transgression of jurisdiction and illegal disposal of unmeasured settlement in Quetta Tehsil in clear violation of scope of work assigned to the concerned officials vide notification dated 12-11-1992 under section 40(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Consequently, Board of Revenue vide notification dated 6-12-1995 directed to the concerned quarters to cancel all titles/rights interest acquired directly or indirectly through the process of settlement work started with effect from Board of Revenue Notification dated 28-11-1986 and consequently, through notification dated 8-11- 1987 the aggrieved persons filed revision under section 164 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the Member Board of Revenue, Balochistan who granted relief to the appellant vide its order dated 26- 2-1997. Appellant also filed Constitutional Petition No,73 of 1976 challenging the said notification dated 6-12-1995 which was dismissed as not pressed in view of the relief secured by the appellant from the Member Board of evenue vide its order dated 26-2-1997 passed in aforesaid revision petition. Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Quetta filed review application against the order dated 6-12-1995 before the Board of Revenue Balochistan Quetta.
Appellant filed application before the Board of Revenue that review petition filed by the Government was not competent. The objection petition of the appellant was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order, dated 13-9-1997. Petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,509 of 1997 before the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta. The learned High Court dismissed the same vide impugned judgment dated 30-4-1998. Reported as 1998 CLC 1738.
Appellant being aggrieved filed C.P. No,815 of 1998 which was fixed before this Court on 8-10-1998 wherein the leave was granted and status quo order was passed in the following term:- "Status quo, as obtaining on the spot, shall be maintained during the pendency of the appeal."
(reported as 1999 SCMR 168).
2. The necessary facts out of which the C.A. No,18 of 2001 arises are that appellants challenged the vires of the order of Board of Revenue dated 11-3-1998 through Constitution Petition No,155 of 1998 in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta which was dismissed vide judgment. Dated 21-4-2000.
Appellants being aggrieved filed C.P. No,930 of 2000 and leave was granted vide order, dated 3-1- 2001 in view of the leave granting order passed in Mst. Razia Jaffer's case (C.A. No,1847 of 1998).
3. It is proper to mention here that Board of Revenue accepted review petition filed by Government of Balochistan through D.C./ Collector, Quetta vide its judgment, dated 17-2-2000. Petitioners being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petitions Nos.177 of 2000, 199 of 2000 and 234 of 2000 in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta which were dismissed vide consolidated judgment dated 27-1-2003.
Petitioners being aggrieved filed C.Ps. Nos.49-Q of 2003, 50-Q of 2003, 51-Q of 2003 and 56-Q of 2003. C.M.A. No,44-Q of 2003 in C.P. No,56-Q of 2003 was filed by the interveners/applicants with the prayer for their impleadment in the petition. C.M.A. No,1753 of 2006 was filed under Order XXX, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for impleadment of applicant (QDA) as party in C.P. No,49- Q of 2003.
4. Learned counsel of the appellants/petitioners submit that Board of Revenue erred in law to dismiss the objection petition of the appellants/petitioners without judicial application of mind and without adverting to the material on record. They further submit that review petition filed by the Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Quetta before the Board of Revenue Balochistan was taken cognizance by the full Board of Revenue consisting of Senior Member, Member-II and Member-III as evident from order, dated 30-4-1997. The full Board passed various orders on the review petition after applying their mind. The senior Member Board of Revenue singly had accepted the review petition vide its order, dated 17-2-2000. Therefore, petitioners/appellants were prejudiced by the impugned order. Since the Full Board has taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, it was not proper for Senior Member to decide the same singly and he has no authority whatsoever to decide the same singly on the ground that it was a judicial matter, therefore, it was the duty and obligation of the Full Board to decide the review petition of the Government collectively instead of single member in view of the circumstances of the case in hand.
5. The learned Law Officer in the petitions/appeals has supported the impugned judgments. He further maintains that matter could be decided under law by single member; therefore, no prejudice was caused to the appellants/petitioners. He further urges that learned Board of Revenue decided the controversy between the parties after judicial application of mind.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order along with the operative part of the order dated 13-9-1997 of the Board of Revenue to resolve the controversy between the parties.
(i) Impugned notification was issued wherein the rights and titles of the petitioners/appellants were cancelled vide notification dated 6-12-1995.
(ii) Petitioners/appellants being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was accepted and relief was granted to the petitioners/appellants vide order, dated 26-2-1997 without setting aside notification dated 6-12-1995.
(iii) Petitioners/appellants filed Constitutional Petition No,626 of 1997 which was dismissed as not pressed in view of relief granted to the petitioners/appellants by the Member Board of Revenue vide order, dated 26-2-1997 with observation that petitioners/appellants be free to file a petition on the available cause of action as and when need be subject to all just exceptions vide order, dated 12-7-1997.
Operative part of order dated 13-9-1997 "It is further pointed out that the. Honourable High Court could not give a decision on the validity of the Notification, as the respondents withdrew their writ petitions. Consequently, the notification has attained finality and is very much in the field."
7.. In case the aforesaid facts and operative part of the order be put in a juxtaposition, then it is crystal clear that Board of Revenue was not justified to dismiss the objection petition of the petitioners/ appellants in such manner. This fact brings the case in the area that the Board of Revenue had decided the objection petition without judicial application of mind. This fact was overlooked by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment dated 30-4-1998. It is pertinent to mention here that Board of Revenue has decided the objection petition in judicial side, therefore, it was duty and obligation of the Board of Revenue to decide the objection petition after judicial application of mind as law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Gouranga Mohan Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD 1970 SC 173.
8. Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner/ Collector filed review petition before the Board of Revenue. Full Board consisting of three members had taken cognizance of the review petition as evident from the orders, dated 30-4-1997 and 13-9-1997 passed by the Full Board and thereafter review petition was accepted by the Senior Member Board of Revenue vide its order, dated 17-2-2000 singly and this fact was not noted in its true perspective by the learned High Court in the impugned consolidated judgment. It is pertinent to mention here that question does not arise in view of aforesaid circumstances that single Member Board of Revenue can decide the review. Petition or by the Full Board as the Full Board had already taken cognizance of the matter and passed various orders after application of mind as evident from the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue dated 17-2-2000 as depicted from pages 204, 205 and 207 of C.P.
No,56-Q of 2003. Therefore, prejudice has caused to the petitioners/appellants in view of the review petition decided by the Senior Member Board of Revenue while sitting singly. As mentioned above, Board of Revenue consisting of three members have taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, to decide the review petition subsequently by the single member is illegal as the petitioners/appellants were prejudiced. In case the cognizance was initially taken by the one member and has passed various orders and ultimately the review petition as decided by the Full Board, then of B course nobody would be prejudiced by increasing members but in the case in hand, members were decreased, therefore, the controversy was decided between the parties by applying the mind by one member instead of three members. It is a settled principle of common sense/logic that application of mind by three persons is not equated with application of mind by one person. Prejudice was defined to the disadvantage of someone one as defined in Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 33 page 461. It is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the D controversy between the parties after application of mind. It is a settled maxim that nobody shall be prejudiced by the act of the Court or act of E the public functionaries. See Ahmad Latif Qureshi v. Controller of Examination PLD 1994 Lah, 3, Arshad Hussain's case 1991 CLC Note 20 at page 13, Mian Irshad Ali's case PLD 1975 Lah. 7 and Fateh Khan's case PLD 1991 SC 782. It is pertinent to mention here that review petition decided by the member vide impugned order is judicial exercise of jurisdiction as evident from section 2(I) (iii), section 4(2), section 6(I)(2), section 3(2), section 7 and section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
See Muhammad Yar's case PLD 1991 Lah.
256. It is a settled law that Board of Revenue is duty bound to decide the G controversy in accordance with law without fear, favour and nepotism as law laid down by this Court in Utility Stores Corporation's case PLD 1987 SC 447, Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab PLD 1995 SC 530 and Ch. Zahur Ilahi v. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto PLD 1975 SC 383.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, all the petitions Nos.49-Q to 51-Q of 2003 and C.P.
No,56-Q of 2003 are converted into appeals and are allowed along with the aforesaid appeals and cases are remanded to the Full Board to decide the review petition of the Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner/Collector in accordance with law. Parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding the position/possession existing today and shall remain in the field subject to final decision by the Full Board. It is pertinent to mention here that Member Board did not set aside notification dated 6-12-1995 vide its order, dated 26-2-1997 while granting some relief to the petitioner/appellant. In view of peculiar circumstances of this case, the case is remanded to Full Board and parties are directed to appear before the Senior Member Board of Revenue on 16-4-2007 who is directed to constitute Full Board within 10 days, thereafter the Full Board shall decide the review petition in accordance with law within six months after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including the interveners/applicants (C.M.A. No,44-Q of 2003 in C.P. 56-Q of 2003 and applicant QDA in C.M.A. 1753 of 2006 in C.P. 49-Q of 2003). Both the C.M.As. For impleadment are allowed. Full Board is directed to proceed in the matter after notice to the interveners and QDA.