' ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 27.12.2003 passed in review petition No, 203/2003 by Member Judicial-III, Board of Revenue, Punjab whereby the review petition of the respondent No, 2 was allowed.
2. Brief facts, as averred in this petition are that petitioner being in cultivating possession of Khasra No, 66 as tenant-at-will situated in revenue estate Bhutian Gujran, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowai, challenged through an appeal before the A.C./Collector Sub-Division Shakkargarh, the mutation No, 78 in favour of respondent No, 2 attested by revenue officer on 26.02.1996. The A.C./Collector after visiting the spot and verifying the cultivating possession of the petitioner accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 20.06.1996. The respondent No, 2 being aggrieved filed second appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.1996. The respondent No, 2 filed a revision petition ROR No, 230 of 1997 before the Board of Revenue, Punjab which was also dismissed on 11.04.2003. Thereafter the respondent No, 2 filed a review petition which was allowed by the Member Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 27.12.2003. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 27.12.2003 was passed at the back of the petitioner without giving any notice or hearing to him. Further submits that in the attendance portion of the impugned order, petitioner has been shown as proceeded against ex pane, however, in Para 4 of the same order it is stated that the petitioner/respondent's argument were heard who defended the impugned order under review. Contends that such self- contradictory order is not sustainable as no application of mind was exercised by the learned Member Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order. He further contends that u/s. 8 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, scope of review is ' limited and .Respondent No, 2 could not re-agitate his 'entire' case in review which was already decided by the learned Member Board of Revenue in appeal. Adds that petitioner was in lawful possession of the property in dispute and there were concurrent findings of three authorities below based on revenue record and therefore, the learned Member Board of Revenue could not set aside the said concurrent findings in review without even hearing the petitioner. Further submits that there was no error apparent on the face of record in the Appellate Court order and therefore, review petition was not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ashraf v. Natho (PLD 1986 Revenue 45), Muhammad Siddik v. Bachal (PLD 1986 Revenue 47), Dodo and others v. Boota Khan (PLD 1986 Revenue 36), Fazal Elahi Mails through Legal Heirs v. Miss Abida Reasat Rizvi (1993 SCM R 226), Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1970 SC 173) and Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Pakistan); Lahore, etc. (PLD 1964 SC 829).
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order passed by learned Member Board of Revenue is valid and legal and there being no jurisdictional defect in the impugned order, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the Courts below did not consider the revenue record including relevant Jainabandies according to which the possession was with the respondent No, 2, therefore, being error apparent on the face of record, impugned order was lawfully passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139), Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others v. Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore and others (1996 CLC 644), Javed Manzoor, etc. v. Member Board of Revenue (1980 CLC 1196), Ahmed Din and another v. Province of Punjab and others (2004 SCM R 779), Muhammad Resham Khan v. Chairman, Inspection Team and 3 others (1990 CLC 1355), Muhammad Sadiq and others v. Ali Asghar Khan and others (1995 CLC 1529) and Begum Nusrat Ali Gonda v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2013 SC 829).
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The bare perusal of impugned order dated 27.12.2013 reveals that in attendance portion, the petitioner was shown as proceeded against ex parte whereas in Para No, 4 of the order it is stated that arguments of the petitioner were heard. The aforesaid self-contradiction in the impugned order is unexplainable and does not appeal to any logic. If the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte, then how could he argue his case in review and defend the order as recorded in the impugned order. The impugned order is also silent that if at all the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte, then when and how he was proceeded against ex parte. It is also not clear whether the impugned order is to be treated as ex parte order or it is an order passed after hearing the parties. The aforesaid self-contradictory status of the impugned order makes it evident that there was no application of mind while passing the impugned order. On the face of it, the impugned order is not reasoned and speaking and also passed without hearing the petitioner in violation of rule of natural justice. It is also not understandable that the petitioner, who was diligently and consistently pursuing his case successfully before various forums up to the level of Board of Revenue, will not appear to contest the review petition of the respondent No, 2 if at all he was duly served. The order without hearing and notice to the parties, will not only result in serious prejudice to parties but it is nullity in the eye of law and Constitutional petition in such circumstances is maintainable. It is well-settled rule that when an order, whether by a' judicial or administrative authority, is passed, adversely affecting a person or property or other right law vested in him or enjoyed by him, then an opportunity of hearing has to .Be given to him before the adverse order is passed against him. In Chief Commissioner, Karachi and another v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 1959 SC 45), it was observed:--- "The rule of justice embodied in the maxim: audi alteram partem: "No man shall be condemned unheard" is not confined to proceedings before Courts but extends to all proceedings, by whatsoever held, which may affect the person or property or other right of the parties concerned in the dispute. As a just decision in such controversies is possible only if the parties are given the opportunity of being heard, there can be as regards the right of hearing, no difference between proceedings which are strictly judicial and those which are in the nature of a judicial proceeding through administrative in form."
' This principle was reiterated in Messrs Faridsons Ltd., Karachi and another v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1961 SC 537), Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Sayedur Rahman (PLD 1964 SC 410), Sh. Abdur Rahman v. The Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and others (PLD 1964 SC 461), The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC 636), The University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90), Abdul Waudud Khan v. Chief Land Commissioner and others (PLD 1966 SC 536) and Christian Edu.
Trust v. Dy. Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1983 SC 183), Ghulam Hadi Baloch v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) and others (1987 SCM R 602), Raziuddin v. Chairman P.I.A. Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 531), Muhammad Mums v. Secretary, Ministry of Communications and others (1993 SCM R 122) and Makerwal Collieries Ltd. And 2 others v. Govt. Of NWFP and 11 others (1993 SCM R 1140).
7. Without touching merits of the case lest it may prejudice case of either party, the impugned order is not sustainable due to afore-mentioned illegalities and infirmities alone. The learned counsel for the respondents could not justify the aforesaid self-contradictions in the impugned order. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is inapt to the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. In view of above discussion, this Constitutional petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 27.12.2003 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue in Review Petition No, 203/2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue to decide the review petition afresh after giving hearing to the parties. As the dispute between the parties relates to the year 1996, therefore, in order to facilitate the early disposal of the review petition, it is directed that the parties will appear before the concerned Member, Board of Revenue on 05.05.2014 for its early disposal in accordance with law. The Constitutional petition is allowed in the terms stipulated above with no order as to costs.
Impugned Order of MBR Set Aside.