. The facts leading to this constitutional petition are that a Consolidation Scheme in respect of village Mitrahal Khurd, Tehsil and District Sialkot, was confirmed by a Consolidation Officer.
Respondent No. 1, Feroze Din, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was, however, not satisfied with the consolidation of his landed property. He, therefore, filed an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation), Sialkot, who allocated the land of Khasra Nos. 138, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136 and 143 to the said respondent after excluding the same from the Khatas of the petitioner, Muhammad Boots, and some others. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the parties filed cross-appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore` who dismissed the appeal of the respondent and accepted that of the peti--tioners and others on the ground that the land given to the respondent by the Collector did not belong to him before consolidation. The order of the Additional Commissioner was challenged by the respondent by means of a revision petition before the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, on the following grounds :-
(i) That the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Was misled by the Patwari (Consolidation) who showed the entitlement of the parties after consolidation instead of before consolidation.
(ii) That the Collector (Consolidation) had rightly held that Khasra No. 225 belonged to the petitioner before consolidation which was given to the respondents. Similarly be held that Khasra Nos. 102 and 101 given to the petitioner in consolidation did not belong to him before consolidation.
(iii) That the petitioner has installed a tube-well in the land in dispute and the impugned order has deprived him of the access to the tube-well."
2. After hearing the parties and examining the record, the learned Member made the following order :- "The petitioner wants restoration of Collector's order dated 5-7-1977. I have seen the sketch map.
The amendments made by the Collector (Cons.) had resulted in unnecessary dislocation of respondents. They had been adjusted in Khasra Nos. 102 & 101 for very small pieces of land e.g. Mst.
Hussain Bibi, Muhammad Hussain etc., Chiragh and Mst. Sakina etc., had been allotted land in these Khasra numbers respectively to the extent of 19 Marlas, 11 Marlas, 10 Marlas and 15 Marlas only.
It was not just for the Collector (Cons.) to adjust them. In Khasra Nos. 101 and 102 for such a meagre land. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore vide his impugned order set aside the Collector's order dated 5-2-1977 mainly for this unnecessary dislocation of the said respondents.
But it does not mean that the petitioner's griev--ances should have been left unsolved. He should have made appropriate adjustment of this area to meet the ends of justice. Giving no genuine relief to the petitioner is no justice. I also dismiss this case for the amendments made by the Collector vide his order dated 5-2-1977. But for the sake of justice I take up this case in exercise of my suo'motu revisional jurisdiction.
6. The record shows that Khasra Nos. 101 & 102 given to the petitioners in consolidation were not owned by the petitioner before consolidation. The sketch map prepared by the Patwari (Cons.) shows that no other land was given to the petitioner contiguous to these Khasra numbers. As such the land given to the petitioner in these Khasra numbers stands aloof from his other lands. Record also shows that a part of these Khasra, numbers was previously held by Muhammad Boota etc, of scheme No. 36/1. These respondents have also received land in consolidation contiguous to the land in Khasra number under dis--cussion. Therefore, it would have been proper from the consolidation point of view to allot these Khasra numbers to the said respondents, Muhammad Boota, etc. The petitioner has contended that he has his tube-well in Khasra No. 141 adjacent to Khasra No. 143. 1 feel that if 6-K 16-M of land in Khasra No. 143 is given to the petitioner ends of justice will be met. Now the only point remains. That is regard--ing Khasra No. 131 near the village abadi. This Khasra number has been allotted to the respondent Muhammad Boota etc. Despite what is held by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) in his impugned order, it was not owned by the respondent Muhammad Boota etc., before consolidation. The petitioner demands 2-K 2-M in Khasra No. 225 old (New 131 to 136). At this place he has been allotted only 1K-13M of land. As Khasra No. 131 (new) was not held by the respondent Muhammad Boota etc. Before consolidation, it seems appropriate that this Khasra number should also be given to the petitioner. Under these circumstances I make the following adjustment between the parties. The impugned order as well as that of the Collector's dated 5-2-1977 are hereby set aside- Name of the parties withArea excluded.Ar a included. scheme No. Feroze Din Scheme No. 22.102 min Pahar 16K-16M)143 (6K-16M)
101 min shumal (OK-16M)131 (OK-19M)
Total : 7K-15M.Of class I.
Total : 7K-15M: Muhammad Boota, etc.143(OK-16M), 131(OK-19M),102-min pahar Scheme No; 36/1.Of class I land.(6K-16M)
Total : 7K-15M.101-min Shumal (OK-19M).
Total : 7-K-15M of class I The revision petition is disposed of accordingly."
It is the said order of the learned Member which has been assailed by the petitioners by means of this constitutional writ."
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the learned Member had taken cognizance of the matter in consequence of the revision petition made by the respondent, he could not simultaneously exercise suo motu power of revision. For this proposition he placed reliance on Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari and 3 others v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 4 others PLD 1977 Lah. 461
4. The cited case involved interpretation of the provisions of paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, which reads as follows :- "29. The revisional powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government, or any person authorised by it in that behalf, may at any time, of its or his own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Regulation or under the repealed Regulation 4 which is pending or in which a Commission or any other authority appointed under this Regulation, or under the repealed Regulation other than the Federal Land Commission constituted under paragraph 4-A, has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself about the correctness, legality or propriety of such an order, and may pass such order in relation thereto a' the Federal Government or, as the case may be, such person thinks fit;-- Provided that the Federal Government may, from time to time, specify the cases or class of cases in which it desires to pass final orders; Provided further that no order shall be passed under this paragraph revising or modifying an order affecting any person unless such person has been afforded an opportunity of being heard; Provided further that the record of any case or proceedings in which a Commission or other authority has passed an order shall not be called for under this paragraph by the Federal Government or the person authorised by it-
(a) of its or his own motion, after the 30th day of September, 1975, or
(b) on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiration of sixty days from -the date of such order or from the enactment of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973, whichever is later, exclud--ing the time requisite for obtaining a copy of such order."
It is evident from the provisions.. Of paragraph 29 that the revision resorted to in pursuance of a petition is different from the one which is under--taken suo motu. The position is, however, otherwise so far as the revision contemplated by section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordi-- nance, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Ordinance, is concerned. Section 13 of the Consolidation Ordinance makes the following reading :- "13. Power to call for and examine record.--(1) The Board of Revenue may at any time call for the record of any proceedings under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer.
(2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by any revenue or consolidation Officer under his control.
(3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for the record under section 2, he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, be shall report the case with his opi--nion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.
(4) The Board of Revenue may in any case called for under sub--section (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under subsection (3) pass such order as it or 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 persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard."
Since it has not been laid down in section 13 that the Board of Revenue shall exercise its revisional powers when moved by means of a petition or su motu it would follow that it can exercise those powers in pursuance of a petition made to it as well of its own motion and once it undertakes that exercise on being petitioned or suo motu it can make any order as it thinks fit, without confining its examination to the grounds urged, or the praye made, in the petition, if any, invoking its revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, the case of Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari and 3 others is of no avail to the petitioners.
5. The existing provisions of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Con--solidation Ordinance were substituted for the old ones by means of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1965. The old provisions were to the following effect; "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 Ordinance 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 by any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer under his control.
(3) If in 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 this opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.
(4) The Board of Revenue may in any case called for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under subsec--petition (3), passed such order as it or 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 persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard."
Thus, according to the old provisions of subsection (1) of section 13 there was distinction between a revision sought by means of a petition and the one resorted to suo motu. By substituting those provisions by the existing ones, the said distinction was removed. It would, therefore, follow that if the contention raised by the learned counsel is accepted, the very purpose of the substitution of subsection (1) would be defeated.
6. In view of present provisions of subsection(1) of section 13, it was not necessary for the learned Member of the Board of Revenue to say, in so many words, that he was going to revise the order of the subordinate officers suo motu and if he had made that observation inadvertently or with the impres--sion that the old provisions of subsection (1) of section 13 were still in force, that would not invalidate the order made by him which, as explained above, he bad the power to make irrespective of the fact that the respondent had invoked his revisional jurisdiction by means of a petition and the relief which the learned Member had granted was different from the one asked for by the respondent.
7. The next point canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners was that having dismissed the application of the petitioners, the order made by the learned Member thereafter involved a review of his order relating to the dismissal of the petition. The argument proceeds that the learned Member could not exercise powers of review, under section 8 of West Pakistan Board. Of Revenue Act, 1957, without notice to the petitioners which was not given to them.
8. As stated above, under section 13 of the Consolidation Ordinance the learned Member could make any order which he deemed fit regardless the relief asked for in the petition made to trim: While exercising his power, under the said provisions of law, it - was noted by the learned Member that the prayer made by the respondent, namely, that the order of the Collector be restored, could not be granted. He had, therefore, proceeded to dismiss his revision petition. Certain defects in the order under revision were, however, taken notice of by him and he wanted to remove them with a view to doing justice. He, therefore, ordered the adjustment referred to above. All this was done by him in one and the same order and, therefore, the question of his reviewing any earlier order does not arise. In the circum--stances, the provisions of section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act are not attracted to the present case:
9. One more argument advanced by the learned counsel was that having dismissed the respondent's petition, the learned Member should have issued fresh notices to the petitioners for making the adjustment in question but as he had not done so, his order was violative of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 13 of the Consolidation Ordinance.
10. It is not denied ,that notice of the revision petition, field by the respondent was served on the petitioners. Thus, it was made known to them that the learned Member was going to exercise his revisional jurisdiction qua the order impugned before him. It was not necessary to intimate to the petitioners the order which was proposed to be made by the learned Member before the same was actually passed by him. On the invok--ing of his revisional jurisdiction by the respondent, under section 13 of the Consolidation Ordinance, the whole matter had opened up before the learned Member and `in exercise of that jurisdiction the learned Member could make such orders as he thought fit; and, as indicated earlier, was not obliged to regulate his scrutiny, in the light of the relief claimed by the respondent in his petition. Therefore, after the service of notice of the respondent's petition no other notice was required to be served on the petitioners before making of the impugned order by the learned Member.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present petition does not call for any interference by this Court. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine.