' MUSHIR ALAM, C.J.---The petitioner has impugned the order passed by a Full Board BOR, dated 24- 2-2011 remanding the case to the learned Member (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh to reexamine the case afresh on merits and decide the same as per law and facts after providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties involved in the matter. The Full Board comprised of Mr.Shazar Shamoon, Member (LU), Board of Revenue, Sindh, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Diwan, Member (R&S), Board of Revenue, Sindh, Syed Moinuddin, Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Sindh and Mr. Ghulam Ali Shah Pasha, Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh.
2. To give brief overview of the facts leading to the instant petition appears to be that on the application of one Naseeruddin Shah leasehold rights in respect of land measuring 28 Acres out of 36-00 acres out of NC No.169, Deh Shah Mureed Gadap Town, Karachi for Wahi Chahi Cultivation was transferred in favour of Mst. Maryam Bai and 8-00 Acres in favour of Mst. Mehrun Nisa for 30 years lease commencing from 1993-1994. By the orders dated 3-9-2004 of District Officer (Revenue).
3. Through an application dated 24-8-2004, Naseeruddin Shah claimed that the land has been wrongly transferred by someone impersonating him and by forging his signatures and misusing his NIC. In the circumstances, the order was recalled on 30-8-2004 by the District Officer (Revenue), which available, at Page 57 of the Court File.
4. Mst. Maryam Bai, Mst. Mehr-unNisa and Muhammad Yousuf assailed the order by filing appeal under section 161 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the EDO (Rev.). The order was set aside, holding that the aggrieved party could file appeal against the order of the D.O (Rev.). Order of the EDO (Rev.) was assailed before the Member, Board of Revenue under section 161(d) of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. Appeal against the order of EDO (Rev.), Karachi was allowed by Member BOR, vide order dated 5-10-2006, which order was also assailed before the Full Bench of BOR under section 7(2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. Full Bench of BOR taking stock of the facts, observed that the successor D.O (Rev.), Karachi could not review his own order under the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, as such order was appealable before the EDO (Rev.)
Karachi under section 161 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, the order in Review of D.O (Rev.), Karachi dated 31-8-2004 was held to be null and void. The Full Bench remanded the matter to the learned Member (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh to reexamine the case afresh' on merits and decide the same as per law and facts after providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties involved in the matter.
5. It seems that during pendency of the instant proceedings, Mr. Shazar Shamoon, learned Member (LU), Board of Revenue, Sindh, heard the parties and maintained the order of his predecessor to remand the case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Board had hit the nails on the head i.e. The order dated 9-3-2003 passed by the DO (Rev.) could not have been reviewed his the DO (Rev.); who ought to have left the parties to avail the remedy in appeal under section 161 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, in accordance with law. It is urged that Full Bench, BOR had no jurisdiction to remand the case to the Member, Board of Revenue, if at all it ought to have been remanded to the EDO (Rev) the appellate authority against the order of DO (Rev).
7. Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, learned counsel for the Board of Revenue contends that under section 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 Board has the authority to remand the case to any subordinate authority, therefore, no exception to the remand of the case to Member (L.U), Board of Revenue. He, however, contends that only impropriety that could be taken into consideration by this court is that during pendency of instant Petition, Mr. Shazar Shamoon, Member (LU) BOR who has decided the case through order dated 30-6-2011 was also one of the Members of the Full Board that remanded the case. It was urged that it could have been decided by any Member, who was not the party to the decision of Full Board.
8. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. To assailing the order that may be passed by different tiers of authorities under the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, the remedy of appeal is provided in a mariner laid down under section 161 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967, which reads as follows:-- "I61.Appeal.---(1) 'Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from an original or appellate order of a Revenue Officer as follows namely:-
(a) to the [Assistant District Officer (Revenue)] of the first grade when the order is made by [Assistant District Officer (Revenue)] of the second grade; and
(b) to the District Officer (Revenue) when the order is made by an [Assistant District Officer (Revenue)] of the first grade;
(c) to the [Executive District Officer (Revenue)], when the order is made by [District Officer (Revenue)J;
(d) to the Board of Revenue only on a point of law, when the order is made by a [Executive District Officer (Revenue)]: ' Provided that--
(i) when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, further appeal shall not lie;
(ii) when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the [District Officer (Revenue)], the order made by the [Executive District Officer (Revenue)] on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final. Explanation (1) [Omitted by the Sindh Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Sindh Ordinance XI of 1980) S. 13]
(2) An order shall not be confirmed, modified or reversed in appeal unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and be heard in support of or against the order appealed from.
(3) No Revenue Officer other than the Board of Revenue shall have power to remand any case in appeal to a lower authority].
' From the above, it is evident that in the event the order passed by Assistant District Officer (Rev.) is appealable before DO (Rev.) and order of DO (Rev.) could be challenged before EDO (Rev.) and appeal against order of EDO on the point of law lies to the Board of Revenue, which is heard by Member, BOR by virtue of section 7 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1957, order passed by Member either in appeal or revision in such class of cases as may be specified in Rules framed under section 9 thereof, may be assailed before the Full Board BOR.
9. In the scheme of Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967, jurisdiction to review, order by Revenue authority is qualified and subject to sanction of authority in higher grade. Under section 163 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 power to review vest in Revenue Authorities to review an order already passed by the concern authority himself or his predecessor in office, power to review embodies power to modify, confirm or reverse the order, vest in Executive District Officer and Collector or by their successor in office, under section 163 of Act of 1967, subject to sanction and approval of Board of Revenue. EDO (Rev.) or his successor in office may review his own order or order of his predecessor.
Likewise, Collector may review his own order or order of his predecessor subject to prior sanction and approval of EDO (Rev.). Jurisdiction to review, as stated above, could be exercised suo motu or on application of any person on the ground of a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which was not available at the time of passing of order or b) on acccunt of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or d). For some other sufficient reason. Only error committed by successor DO (Rev.) in instant case in hand was that he reviewed order of his predecessor DO (Rev) without obtaining prior sanction and approval of EDO as required under sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (a) to subsection (2) of section 163 of Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Full Bench of BOR rightly concluded that successor DO (Rev.) had no jurisdiction to review order of his predecessor (without sanction and approval of EDO (Rev)) and it was only the EDO (Rev.), who could have examined the proprietary of the same in appeal or by himself as noted above, only after obtaining prior sanction from EDO (Rev) which was not obtained, therefore, conclusion of Full Board of BOR in either case is unexceptionable.
10. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-that the Full Bench, BOR if at all could have directed the parties to assail the Order passed by the DO (Rev) before the EDO (Rev) and that the Full Bench erred in remanding the case to Member (LU) BOR. Arguments were examined and were found to be fallacious. The Board of Revenue, in exercise of its power under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 8 of the Sindh Board of Revenue Act, 1957 either on its own motion or on application of any party may call for record and decide the matter after hearing all the parties or remand the case to any subordinate functionary for decision in accordance with law.
No exception to exercise of authority to remand the case to the Member (LU), BOR could be taken under given facts and circumstances of case.
11. Only error that has been committed; as pointed out by Mr Ahmed Pirzada, learned counsel for the Board of Revenue is that the order dated 24-2-2011 passed during the pendency of instant proceedings was by Mr. Shazar Shamoon, Member (LU), Board of Revenue, who was one of -the Members BOR who himself was the part of the Full Board, that remanded the case for decision by the Member (LU) BOR, 'therefore. Taking note of the event subsequent to the filing of instant petition, it may be observed that in the fitness of the matter proprietary demanded that the Member (LU)
BOR, who himself was part of the Full Bench of the BOR, the highest authority in the revenue hierarchy, should have refrained or excused himself from hearing the matter on remand to the Member (LU), when it could have been heard by any other Member (LU), BOR. In this view of the impropriety noted above, order dated 30-6-2011 passed by Mr. Shazar Shamoon, Member (LU), Board of Revenue, (which was brought on record along with C.M.A. 10873 of 2011) for contempt, is set aside. Since the controversy subject-matter of instant petition is shuttling between various revenue authorities on jurisdictional point. It is expected , that learned Member (LU) BOR, shall decide the same expeditiously.
12. Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, learned counsel for the Board of Revenue has informed that Mr. Shazar Shamoon is no more the Member (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh. Let this matter be decided by any other Member (LU) Board of Revenue, Sindh, who was not the part of the Full Bench, which remanded the matter to the Member (LU) BOR for decision in accordance with law. Needless to; say that Appeal No.S.R.O. 10 of 2006 shall be B deemed to be pending before the Member (LU) BOR, all the parties to the said appeal and revenue proceedings shall be given due opportunity of being heard before any final order is passed.
13. All the learned counsel present assure and undertake that all the parties represented by them, shall appear before the learned Member BOR, as directed. In the terms of the above, this petition stands disposed off.