' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this Constitutional petition petitioner Ghulam Ahmad son of Abdul Fattah seeks the setting aside of the order dated 13-9-2006, passed by the respondent No,1/Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he accepted the ROR filed by respondents Nos.2 to 7 against the order dated 6-2-2003 dismissing the revision petition by the EDOR filed by said respondents Nos.2 to 7 under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and remanded the case to the EDOR, Vehari.
2. Facts in brief leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that Ghulam Ahmad, petitioner herein, moved an application before the Tehsildar/AC-T, Burewala for partition of joint holding to the extent of his share of land measuring 23 Kanals, 8-Marlas situated in Khewat No,708 Khatooni Nos.40 to 42 of Chak No,519/EB, Tehsil Burewala District Vehari. The Tehsildar/AC-I vide orders dated 7-12-2000 approved the mode of partition and vide orders dated 3-1-2004 confirmed the same.
Subsequently, the Tehsildar/AC-1, Burewala vide order dated 18-1-2001 made three Wandas, i,e, Wanda No,l. For respondent No,1 and directed the Girdawar Halqa for preparation of "NAQSHA JEEM" in triplicate before 31-1-2001. (sic) orders the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and the present petitioner filed two separate appeals before the EDOR; the District Officer Revenue, Vehari visited the site on 13-7- 2002 and dismissed the appeals through a single order dated 24-7-2002 on the grounds that Tehsildar Burewala, partitioned the joint holding keeping in view means of irrigation, road/paths and possession etc. Against this order Zafar Ahmad etc., respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed revision petition in the Court of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari which was dismissed by him vide order dated 6-2-2003. Thereafter against the said order the respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed ROR No,792 of 2003 in the Board of Revenue, which was allowed by the Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue vide order dated 13-9-2006 and the case was remanded to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari for fresh decision with the following observations:-- "it is apparent from the record and orders of lower courts that the partition proceedings were not made according to the law/procedure laid on the subject. The Tehsildar/AC-I was required to consider all aspects of partition such as title in the property to be divided, possession of each co- sharer, classification of land, proximity of any portion of land to metalled road and Abadi Deh, etc., before drawing up the mode of partition. The order of Tehsildar/AC-I was, therefore patently bad in law whereby he allowed partition of the land on the basis of Wandas prepared according to the wishes of present respondents. The District Officer (Revenue), Vehari and Executive District Officer (Revenue) Vehari, therefore, fell in error by upholding the partition order dated 18-1-2001, which was legally infirm. The orders of the lower Courts are set aside and the case is remanded to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari for fresh decision keeping in view the above said observations after hearing the parties and visiting the spot."
' The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of the Member, Board of Revenue, and seeks setting aside of the same through the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Member Board of Revenue transgressed his jurisdiction and exercised the same neglecting not only the facts of the case but also law related thereto, which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice; that the petitioner is in continuous possession of Khasra Nos.56/14 to 17 to the extent of his entitlement, i,e, 23 Kanals and 08 Marlas; the Wandas were prepared by the field staff on the line of action proposed by the AC-I/Tehsildar; the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue is result of misreading and non-reading of the record; that the case has illegally been remanded by the learned Member.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. He further contended that the writ petition was not maintainable against the remand order as it does not finally determine the matter in issue between the parties. He relies on the cases reported as Akbar Ali and 18 others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and 14 others (2007 CLC 768 Lahore), Mst.
Kaniz Fatima and 3 others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore and 5 others (PLD 1973 Lah. 495), Jafar Hussain v. Member Judicial-IV, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others (2004 MLD 2024), Ghulam Rasul and others v. Khuda Dad and others (PLD 1986 Quetta 130), Muhammad llyas Khan v. Muhammad and others (1986 SCMR.251) and Ramzan v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Legal) Sargodha and others (PLD 1963 Lah. 461).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Nature of jurisdiction being exercised while examining the order of remand must be taken into account. The judgment reported as Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafis Bano through Legal Heirs (2005 SCMR 251), pertains to Order XL1, rule 23 of the C.P.C. With all its prescribed limitations, while in the instant case Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the impugned order of remand. This distinction/difference is the nature of jurisdiction being exercised cannot be ignored. Where the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was invoked to challenge the order of remand a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment reported as Ramzan v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Legal)
Sargodha and others (PLD 1963 (W.P) Lahore 461) held as under:-- "That point is this; he says that the order of remand was illegal and unwarranted for various reasons which he has explained and most of which are set out in his petition. We are of the opinion that even if it is assumed that his complaint is well-founded (without deciding that it is so) since the error, if any, has not resulted in a final order, but in an order of remand, it is not appropriate that we should interfere with the order in writ jurisdiction."
6. Another Division Bench of this Court followed the said principle of law in its judgment reported as Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 3 others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others (PLD 1973 Lah. 495). The said judgment was also followed by a Division Bench of Balochistan High Court in the case reported as Ghulam Rasul and others v. Khuda Dad and others (PLD 1986 Quetta 130. Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as Muhammad Ilyas Khan v. Muhammad and others (1986 SCMR 251) also reiterated the aforesaid principle that a constitutional petition 4 not an appropriate remedy against a remand order.
7. It is settled law as has been by the honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court and other High Courts from time to time that it would not be appropriate to exercise constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an order of remand, which principle has been followed consistently for the last several decades and this Court is not persuaded to deviate from it.
8. In view of discussion made above, I hold that this writ petition against the remand order is not maintainable as no final order has been passed. Therefore, this petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, the EDO (Revenue), whom case has been remanded, is directed to decide the matter expeditiously.