'CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---By way of this writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayer:- - "Under the circumstances it is humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and both the impugned orders dated 30-7-2003 and 25-5-2005 may kindly be declared as illegal, void, without jurisdiction, hence without lawful authority and the petitioner be declared eligible to acquire the proprietary rights of land in dispute."
2. Briefly put the facts in chronological order are that Jan Muhammad petitioner was allotted land in question under the 10 years Cultivation Scheme in A 1968. It was cancelled on 24-1-2007 by the Assistant Commissioner, Multan, due to non-payment of the lagan. Subsequently, Jan Muhammad's application for the grant of proprietary rights was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 25-11-1980. The belated appeal filed by Jan Muhammad was rejected on 13-1- 1997. The petitioner filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, which was accepted on 20-4-2000 and the case was remanded to the District Collector for decision on merits.
3. The District Officer (Revenue) rejected the claim of the petitioner on 8-6-2002. Through the said order the claim of Bashir Ahmad respondent No,2 was also rejected. Both Jan Muhammad (petitioner) and Bashir Ahmad (respondent No,2) filed appeals before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Multan, against the order of the District Officer (Revenue), dated 8-6-2002. The appeal of Bashir Ahmad was dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) on 18-7-2002, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner Jan Muhammad is still pending Bashir Ahmad challenged the order dated 18-7-2002 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), which had been disposed of by respondent No,1/learned Member Board of Revenue through Revision No,1567/2002.
The learned Member Board of Revenue held the petitioner Jan Muhammad to be disentitled for the proprietary rights whereas the case of Bashir Ahmad respondent No,2 was recommended to the District Officer (Revenue) to scrutinize his claim. The petitioner Jan Muhammad filed a review petition, which was dismissed on 25-5-2005.
4. The petitioner Jan Muhammad has assailed the orders dated 30-7-2003 and 2-5-2005 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue/respondent No,1 through the instant constitutional petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the remand order is illegal as the case of the petitioner had not been ordered to be scrutinized along with respondent No,2. It is further submitted that the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Officer (Revenue) is pending before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan and during the pendency of that appeal the petitioner has been non-suited. It is further contended that the factual aspects of the entitlement of the petitioner have not been properly gone into by respondent No,l.
6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as learned counsel for respondent No,2 have supported the impugned orders.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced from all corners and perused the record minutely.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was allotted the land in question in 1968. The petitioner is litigating for the c last 3 decades for the entitlement of the proprietary rights in the said land before the Revenue Authorities. It is also an admitted fact that the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the District Officer (Revenue) Multan, is pending adjudication.
9. There is a procedural lapse as the petitioner and respondent No,2 were litigating for the grant of proprietary rights with respect to the same land in question at the same time before the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Multan, therefore it was obligatory upon the said Revenue Officer to have disposed of both the appeals after scrutiny of the case in juxtaposition of the claim of the parties. On the other hand, the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), disposed of the appeal of respondent No,2, whereas the appeal of the petitioner was kept pending. This created a situation where the learned Member Board of Revenue could decide the case of respondent No,2 as petitioner and Jan Muhammad as respondent. Although the petitioner Jan Muhammad filed a review petition but he could not receive a substantial justice because his appeal had not, by that time, been disposed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan. The petitioner has a reasonable case to be scrutinized by the Revenue E Authorities for the grant of proprietary rights in juxtaposition to the case of respondent No,2. Hence, I feel that an illegality had been committed in remanding the case of respondent No,2 only to be scrutinized for the grant of proprietary rights of the land in question to the exclusion of the petitioner.
10. In this situation of the matter, as the case had been remanded by the learned Member Board of Revenue to the District Officer (Revenue) Multan; therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Executive District Officer (R), Multan shall be considered to be infructuous as by way of the present order. I propose to order the modification of the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue to the extent that the case of the petitioner and respondent No,2 may be taken together by the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan for consideration of their entitlement.
11. In sequel thereof, the impugned orders dated 30-7-2003 and 25-5-2006 are modified to the extent that the remand order shall include the scrutiny of the case of the petitioner and respondent No,2 both in juxtaposition to each other's entitlement for the grant of proprietary rights for the land in question.