' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- The order will dispose of the following civil petitions for leave to appeal as these involve common questions of law and fact.---
1. C.P. No,777-L of 2005 2.C.P. No,1271-L of 2005 3.C.P. No,745-L of 2005 4.C.P. No,783-L of 2005 5.C.P. No,776-L of 2005 6.C.P. No,1081-L of 2005 7.C.P. No,1036-L of 2005 8. C.P. No,2086-L of 2005
9. C.P. No,2083-L of 200510. C.P. No,2082-L of 2005 11.C.P. No,2081-L of 2005 12. C.P. No,2080-L of 2005
13. C.P. No,2079-L of 200514. C.P. No,2078-L of 2005
15. C.P. No,2077-L of 200516. C.P. No,2076-L of 2005 17.C.P. No,1860-L of 2005 18. C.P. No,1859-L of 2005 19.C.P. No,1061-L of 2005 20.C.P. No,1410-L of 2005 21.C.P. No,981-L of 2005 22.C.P. No,982-L of 2005 23..C.P. No,983-L of 2005 24.C.P. No,984-L of 2005 25.C.P. No,985-L of 2005
2. The learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue addressed letter, dated 2-10-1994 to all the Executive District Officers (Revenue) and District Officers (Revenue) in the Punjab according to which all orders passed in his capacity as Member (Judicial-III) or Member (Colonies) after 8-3- 1999 permitting grant of proprietary rights to the lessees of the Lambardari grants were recalled in purported exercise of suo motu review jurisdiction under section 8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The background in which the aforesaid letter was issued was that vide judgment dated 8-3-1999, the learned Federal Shariat Court declared Rule 19(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 (rule of primogeniture in the matter of appointment of successor of a Lambardar) as ultra vires of the Injunctions of Islam and in pursuance of the said judgment of the Federal Shariat Court the fate of the Lambardari grants was under consideration of the Cabinet Committee of the Provincial Government.
3. The aforesaid letter was challenged in a number of writ petitions which were allowed by different benches of the learned Lahore High Court, the Principal seat and the Multan Bench. In cases at Serial Nos.21 to 25 I.C.As. Were filed against judgments of the learned single Judge which were dismissed as incompetent. The orders passed in the wri, petitions and the I.C.As. Have been assailed in these petitions.
4. The basis to allow the writ petitions was that the respondents were condemned unheard and that the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 did not permit exercise of any suo motu review jurisdiction. Writ petitions at serial Nos.8 to 26 are barred by time and condonation of delay has been sought.
5. Mr. Saleem Sehgal, learned Advocate Supreme Court has led the arguments. He contended that the learned High Court did not issue proper notice to the petitioners, mere presence of a Law Officer was not a substitute for proper notice as the writ petitions were finally decided, the respondents in the writ petitions were not entitled to the grant of proprietary rights particularly after 8-3-1999 in view of declaration of the learned Federal Shariat Court, in some cases, orders for the grant of proprietary rights were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and could be recalled even under the inherent powers vesting in all the Courts and the Tribunals. The learned High Court did not consider that efforts should be made to save the orders and actions of the public functionaries by surveying the whole field of their authority. He maintains that apart from the inherent powers, Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 and section 30(2) of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 empowered the learned Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue to have passed the impugned order which rectified a patent wrong.
The other learned counsel representing the petitioners were also heard.
6. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chughtai, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared for respondents, defending the impugned judgments, he maintains that petitions at serial Nos.8 to 26 are barred by limitation and no case is made out for condonation of delay, the judgment of the learned Federal Shariat Court was not retrospective, proprietary rights were conferred after thorough examination of each case which had created vested rights in their favour which could not have been undone and that too without any notice to or hearing of the respondents.
7. The submissions made have been considered. The Punjab Board IA of Revenue Act, 1957, does not contemplate suo motu powers of review. I Therefore, purported exercise of jurisdiction thereunder by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue was ex facie without lawful authority, the respondents were not heard and a general letter was issued undoing the orders passed after 8-3-1999. Such an order could hardly be maintained. The contention that proper notice was not issued to the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue has no merit because the Law Officer was in attendance. Assuming for the worst that the impugned order of the High Court was rendered as illegal for want of proper notice to the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue even then we are of the view that no case is made out for interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 185 of the Constitution because the impugned order of the learned High Court set aside a patently illegal order and not only our interference will amount to restoring a patently illegal order of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue but also that no useful purpose will be served to remand the case to the learned Lahore High Court for rehearing because the grounds being urged cannot possible sanctify the letter dated 2-10-1994.
8. We have considered the objection of Mr. Chughtai as to the limitation and we find no merit in it for the reason that petitions at serial Nos.1 to 7 are within time and the validity of the impugned order of the learned Lahore High Court and that of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue has been examined by us in the said cases. Reliance is placed on Mehreen Zaibun Nisa v. Land Commissioner, Multan and others PLD 1975 SC 397. Otherwise also, we are not inclined to disturb the finding as regards the disputed letter of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue.
9. However, we are of the view that if the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue feels the necessity to reconsider his orders granting proprietary rights to the lessees of the Lambardari grants he may do so but .After examining each case individually with notice to the lessees and thereafter may pass proper orders in accordance with law.
10. Petitions Nos.745-L and 1036-L of 2005 are directed against the order, dated 7-3-2005 whereby Writ Petition No,2042-L of 2005 was allowed. It has happened because C.P. No,745-L of 2005 was filed by a private counsel on the basis of power of attorney executed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue while C.P. No,1036-L of 2005 was filed through the Additional Advocate-General on the basis of power of attorney executed by the Law Secretary. Apparently, this was on account of lack of proper coordination. However, C.P. No,1036-L of 2005, being later in point of time, is disposed of as redundant.
11. Accordingly, these petitions, except C.P. No,1036-L of 2005, are converted into appeals and disposed of in terms of the observations in para.9 above. We will, however, like to observe that in case fresh proceedings are taken by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue the lessees will be free to raise all legal and factual objections which will be settled in accordance with law.
This order will ensure to the benefit of those who might have been affected by the letter dated 2- 10-2004 but may not have approached the learned High Court or the Civil Court. No orders as to costs.