' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.- The consolidation scheme of Village Bairoon Kasur, Tehsil and District Kasur was confirmed in the year 1996. On receipt of complaints of illegalities and irregularities, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Board of Revenue took up and probed the matter who annulled the scheme and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Kasur for proceedings afresh in view of the guidelines and directions mentioned in his order dated 7-10-1999. On revision petition the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has upheld the order passed by respondent No,3. These orders are sought to be assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that once the scheme was finalized the parties should have been left to follow the legal remedies provided by law i.e, The Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and that indeed some aggrieved persons had availed such remedies. According to him, the scheme as whole could not be annulled.
' Reference in this context has been made to Atta Muhammad and 6 others v. Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue of Punjab, Lahore and 9 others (2002 CLC 464). The learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Law Officer support the order passed by the Board of Revenue on the strength of provisions of section 13 of the Ordinance that such a power could be lawfully exercised.
' Report and parawise comments have been submitted by the official respondents and have been perused.
3. It may be noted that under the law the consolidation scheme is prepared by the Consolidation Officer under section 10 of the Ordinance. The scheme when confirmed is open to challenge by any aggrieved person through appeal under section 11. . Then figures section 13, the provisions whereof are important in the context of controversy, which read as under: ~ Section 13.-Power to call for and examine record.-(1) The Board of Revenue may :-
(a) At any time of its own motion call for the record of any proceedings under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer; or
(b) On application made to it in that behalf by a person aggrieved within 90 days of the passing of an order in any proceedings under this Ordinary by any Revenue or Consolidation Officer, and after giving such person an opportunity of being heard, call for the record of such proceedings.
(2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer under his control.
(3) If any case in which a Collector has called for the record under - subsection (2), he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or " reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.
(4) The Board of Revenue may in any case call for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case call for by him under subsection (2) to him under subsection (3), pass such order as it br he thinks fit: ' Provided that no order shall be passed under this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and affecting any question of right between private person without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard.
4. As is evident from the perusal of the above provisions, the Board of Revenue has the power to call for the record of any proceedings under the Ordinance "at any time" whether the matter is "pending" or had been "disposed of" by the Consolidation Officer and pass such order as "it thinks fit". When compared with the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C., the difference in the scope and content becomes quite obvious. The ambit and the scope of powers under section 13 of the Ordinance is apparently large and extensive. It is akin to the provisions of section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The power thus is not hedged by any such constraint or limitation as is being projected. The only requirement is that before passing any order, reversing or modifying the proceedings or order of the subordinate official, opportunity of hearing is to be afforded to the person concerned. This is the aim and object of subsection (4) of section 13 of the Ordinance. In Abdul Majid Khan etc. v. Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation), etc. (1986 M LD 782), it was observed that when irregularities and illegalities go to the very root of the matter, the Board of Revenue could justifiably direct fresh consolidation of the village. In Kala v. Board of Revenue and another (PLD 1985 SC 208), the scope of powers of Board of Revenue qua section 13 of the Ordinance, came to be considered before their Lordships and it was observed that:- ' "The power preserved under' section 13, on the other hand as the scheme of the Ordinance plainly shows, is the . Power of superintendence and control over the subordinate functionaries in the structure of the authorities envisaged under the Ordinance. This power appears to be vast and unbridled in its scope and amplitude, as there are no statutory limitations placed upon its reach and the manner and its exercise except the time limits on its recourse on motion of a party, and that also, in the case of Board of Revenue."
' It was further observed that:- ' "We hold that the order of the Board of Revenue impugned in these proceedings did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction on the ground that intermediary steps of filing appeals before the lower authorities were not taken by the applicant in the revision."
5. In Najabat Ali v. Bashir Ahmad and others (PLD 1987 SC 16), it was observed that "Where a consolidation scheme is found to be so offensive to the requirement of the law, appears on the face of it to be unjust and unfair, the Consolidation authorities are under a duty to reject it even though it be based on compromise, or undertaking among the parties or most of them." Such is the power vested in the Board of Revenue and conceded by law, who is to supervise that the process of consolidation is undertaken in accordance with law without affecting the rights of the land-owners.
It may be noted that the mere filing of appeal by some of the aggrieved persons in the hierarchy would not denude the Board of Revenue of its powers vested in it under section 13 of the Ordinance, who happens to be at the apex of that hierarchy and charged with the supervisory duty under the law. It is, however, for the Board of Revenue to consider in each case when it comes before it, the nature, amplitude and import of such illegalities and irregularities and to determine whether it appropriately attracts its jurisdiction and power of annulment of the scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the scope and extent of the power of Board of Revenue is thus untenable and cannot be countenanced.
6. In the instant case, the Additional Commissioner visited the village and heard the landowners .And on scrutiny of the record noted numerous illegalities and irregularities committed in the process of consolidation and on appreciation of the matter came to the conclusion that "the entire scheme should be reviewed" and thus had to annul the scheme ordering fresh consolidation. The learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue while passing order dated 15-4-2004 noted that "very serious irregularities/illegalities have been committed which cannot be rectified through normal course of appeals/revisions/ suo motu. There is no denying the fact that the consolidation is a painful and slow process and ordinarily, the people should not be subjected to its operation time and again. The web of consolidation which is so painfully and laboriously woven, should not be unraveled on flimsy excuses; but the facts of this case are different. Vital rights of the parties cannot be taken away and if the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or hot at all. By Ordering the fresh consolidation, no person is materially prejudiced as all the right holders will have an ample opportunity of the right of appeal/revision in case they find the scheme violative of their right. Even otherwise, they will have ample opportunity to witness the proceedings and elect the members of the advisory committee. Thus, the fresh consolidation is allowed." The impugned order was passed by Syed Shaukat Ali Shah, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, and the report submitted before, this Court by his successor Muhammad Ayub Malik, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab also shows that "the consolidation scheme suffered from multiple severe illegalities and was violative of the rules and principles of consolidation on numerous accounts. These irregularities and illegalities not being rectifiable by any other means, through the said order, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division scra pped the consolidation scheme and ordered for preparation of fresh scheme for which he gave guidelines". The concurrent view expressed by two successive Members i.e, the statutory functionaries as to the commission of illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of consolidation scheme can hardly be submitted by this Court in writ jurisdiction. As laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Kala's case (supra) even existence of right of appeal is not a bar for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners upon Atta Muhammad and 6 others v. Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others (2002 CLC 464) is inapt and misplaced inasmuch in the precedent case the facts and circumstances were materially different inter alia that it was observed in that case that a party who had once failed in appeal could not re-agitate the matter through a fresh appeal as the first order passed by the appropriate forum had become final.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed with the observation that all concerned including the petitioners will have the opportunity of joining proceedings as per the directions of respondent No,3 and of respondent No,2. No order as to costs.