' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 10-12-2007 and 26-5-2005, passed by the Member Judicial-I, Board of Revenue, Punjab and District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala, respectively, and restoration of order passed by the Executive District Officer dated 16-5-2006.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Muhammad Shafi, who was real brother of the present petitioner died unmarried. The deceased was owner of land measuring 46 kanals 7 marlas, (being 1/2 share of total land measuring 92 kanals 14 marlas, comprising khewat No,125, situated in Mauza Hardo Dewrhi). The land left by the deceased was mutated in favour of respondent/Muhammad Sharif (brother), Farzand Ali (father) and Mst. Asoo Bibi (mother), vide inheritance Mutation No,1319 dated 26-6-1978. In the pedigree-table the present petitioner was not shown as legal heir of the deceased. Subsequently, the parents of the deceased also allegedly transferred their share to Muhammad Sharif, vide Mutation No,1377 dated 30-6-1979. Thereafter, Muhammad Sharif transferred his whole land to his sons/respondents Nos.1 to 3 by way of gift, vide Mutation No,2588 dated 11-10-2003. The present petitioner filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala seeking registration of a criminal case against her brother Muhammad Sharif, which was accepted and as a consequence thereof F.I.R. No,66 of 2004, dated 16-12-2004 was registered at Police Station ACE, Gujranwala under sections 420, 468, 471, 467/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against Muhammad Sharif and other revenue officials.
Muhammad Sharif filed Writ Petition No,12603 of 2005 before this Court for quashing the said F.I.R., which was accepted, vide order dated 7-11-2005. The present petitioner challenged the order of this Court dated 7-11-2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing C.P. No,84-L of 2006, which was allowed on 31-1-2006 and order of this Court was set aside. Muhammad Sharif was tried along with other co-accused by the learned Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala, who, vide judgment dated 4-10-2006, found all the three accused guilty of the offences charged against them. They were convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I. Each along with a fine of Rs,5000 each and in case of default to further undergo one month's S.I.
3. During the pendency of the trial the present petitioner submitted an application to the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala/respondent No,5 for review of Mutation Nos.1319, dated 26-6-1978, 1377, dated 30-6-1979 and 2588 dated 11-10-2003 on the ground that all these mutations were passed on the basis of false pedigree-table as she being the real sister of the deceased Muhammad Shafi was not shown as such just to deprive her from her legal share. The application of the petitioner, vide order dated 26-5-2005, was dismissed by the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala. Aggrieved, the present petitioner filed revision petition before the EDO (Revenue), Gujranwala, which was converted into appeal and while accepting the same on 16-5-2006, the order of the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala dated 26-5-2005 was set aside. Resultantly, the mutations under dispute were ordered to be reviewed as prayed for by the petitioner. The respondents assailed the order dated 16-5-2006 by filing a revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was accepted, vide order dated 10-12-2007 and as a result thereof order of the EDO (Revenue) was set aside while order of the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala, dated 26-5-2005 was restored. Hence, the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are contrary to law and facts on the record; that respondent No,4 has not applied his judicial mind to the facts of the case and has passed such an order, which cannot be termed as a speaking order; that findings of respondent No,5 with regard to the ouster of jurisdiction of the Revenue hierarchy to adjudicate upon the matter is totally against law; and that by the impugned order respondent No,4 has reversed a well reasoned and legal order passed by the EDO (Revenue), Gujranwala, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned. Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has supplemented the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner while the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 has supported the impugned orders.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The impugned order dated 10-12-2007, passed by Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Member Jud1.-I, Board of Revenue, Punjab has been perused. It does not contain any reason or ground for setting aside the order passed by the EDO (Revenue), Gujranwala. Respondent No,4 has not even bothered to mention the facts of the case for forming an opinion. It is observed with great disapproval that the Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, after noting down the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties abruptly came to the following conclusion:-- "Arguments heard. Record perused. It is evident that the findings of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), A Gujranwala, dated 16-5-2006, are not based on facts and merits of the case. The revision petition of the petitioner is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and restored the order of the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala, dated 26-5-2005, which is in accordance with the law."
' The above order is not at all a speaking order and in no manner be called a "Judicial order" within the Para-meters of law. The tenor of the impugned order manifests non-application of judicial mind. The superior courts have time and again disapproved passing of such perfunctory. Orders. In case of Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry and another v. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 2004 SC 413) the Hon'ble apex Court held as under:- "It may be noted that the forums seized with the judicial matters are required to pass such a speaking judgment that it should give an impression to readers that the legal and factual aspects of the case which were raised before it for the purpose of decision have been considered and decided in the light of recognized principles of law on the subject instead of disposing of in slipshod manner."
' In any way the impugned order being sketchy, non-speaking and devoid of reasons is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the respondents has also conceded that the impugned order is not a speaking order. In this view of the matter without commenting upon the merits of the case lest it should prejudice the case of either of the parties, this Court deems it proper to remand this case to the Member Judicial-I for decision afresh, in the light of observations made above.
8. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to respondent No,4 for passing a speaking order afresh, within one month from the date of first appearance of the parties.
The parties are directed to appear before respondent No,4 on 11-6-2013.