' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, through which an order of Additional Member Board of Revenue dated 8-12-2007 passed in a review petition has been assailed.
2. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner filed a suit for possession regarding the land measuring 40 Kanals and 15 Marlas bearing survey No,917 min situated at village Lahrri Tehsil and District Mirpur in the court of Sub Judge Mirpur on 28-4-1977 against non-petitioner No,4 Muhammad Latif and others. The suit was decreed in 'favour of the petitioner on 30-1-1980. Non- petitioner No,4 and others filed an appeal before District Judge Mirpur who also dismissed the appeal on 17-7-1982. Non-petitioner No,4 and others preferred an appeal before High Court. The same was dismissed as well on 29-5-1984. The said judgment was challenged before the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir: The apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by non-petitioner No,4 & others with costs on 23-12-1986. The petitioner applied for execution of the decree and the possession of the disputed land was delivered to him in compliance of warrant of possession issued by Sub-Judge Mirpur on 14-5-1987.
3. It was further stated in the petition that non-petitioner No,4 Muhammad Latif filed an application to eject the petitioner from the disputed land before the Collector District Mirpur. The said application was made over to Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector First Class Mirpur for disposal under law. The Revenue Officer restored the pending applications started by the said Muhammad Latif earlier and started proceedings. The petitioner submitted objections that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land, which was handed over to him by the Civil Court through a legal process. The Revenue Officer dismissed the applications for ejectment filed by the said Muhammad Latif on 10-4-2002. Non-petitioner No,4 Muhammad Latif filed an appeal before Additional Collector Mirpur against the order of Revenue Officer dated 10-4-2002. The Additional Collector Mirpur dismissed the appeal on 31-10-2002. The said Muhammad Latif challenged the same before Additional Commissioner Mirpur through a revision petition. Additional Commissioner Mirpur accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to Revenue Officer Mirpur. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before Additional Member Board of Revenue AJ&K who accepted the appeal and upheld the order of Additional Collector Mirpur through his judgment dated 16-6-2007. Thereafter, the said Muhammad Latif secretly filed a review petition before Additional Member Board of Revenue. Additional Member Board of Revenue accepted the review petition filed by non-petitioner Muhammad Latif vide order dated 8-12-2007 without hearing the petitioner. This order in the review petition was passed without legal justification and without hearing the petitioner and against the facts of the case. It was prayed through the present writ petition to declare the order of Additional Member Board of Revenue dated 8-12-2007 as, passed without legal justification and to quash the same.
4. Non-petitioner Muhammad Latif submitted written statement while ex parte proceedings were ordered against the other respondents. It was stated in the written statement that the petitioner has got no cause of action, petition is not maintainable in the present form and the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. The petitioner is not owner of the disputed land. The land is owned by WAPDA and in possession of non-petitioner Muhammad Latif. The Additional Member Board of Revenue passed the order in the review petition on merits and the said order was passed by a competent authority. It was prayed to -dismiss the instant writ petition.
5. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties who only repeated their version as taken in the pleadings. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record and the relevant law minutely. It is an admitted fact that the parties contested for possession of the disputed land from the court of Sub-Judge up to the apex Court of AJ&K. Thereafter, a round of litigation was also exercised from the court of Revenue Officer up to Board of Revenue. Non- petitioner Muhammad Latif has admitted the rounds of litigation before Civil and Revenue Courts through the contents of his written statement. Without going into the details of the case, it is crystal clear that the facts regarding litigation mentioned in the writ petition are admitted and the judgments and orders of the relevant courts corroborate the version as taken in the writ petition.
The learned Additional Member Board of Revenue recorded a comprehensive and self speaking judgment while accepting the appeal filed by the present petitioner. This judgment was announced on 16-6-2007. The learned Member Board of Revenue relied upon the judgments and orders of Civil and Revenue Courts. The learned Member opined through his judgment that no contrary opinion can be given against the judgment of the apex Court and all other courts are bound to follow the judgments of the apex Court. It was declared by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue that non-petitioner Muhammad Latif was not owner of the disputed land and he was not an aggrieved person as well. The learned Member accepted the appeal filed by the present petitioner and maintained the order of Additional Collector Mirpur.
6. Later on, a review petition was filed before the same Member Board of Revenue on 16-7-2007. It is astonishing that the said Additional Member Board of Revenue accepted the review petition and remanded the matter to Extra Assistant Commissioner and directed him to decide the matter within 3 months after hearing the parties. The learned Member himself did not bother to summon the present' petitioner while hearing the review petition and recorded his order in a telegraphic manner, which is totally contrary to his own judgment dated 16-6-2007 and all other judgments and orders of Civil and Revenue authorities. The learned Member Board of Revenue was bound to summon the opposite party and to pass any order after hearing the said opposite party under section 8 of the AJ&K Board of Revenue Act, 1993 while hearing the review petition but the learned Member has violated the mentioned provision of law.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that possession of the disputed land has been delivered to the present petitioner and this fatt has been admitted by non-petitioner Muhammad Latif as he filed applications for ejectment of the present petitioner from the disputed land.
Having in view the above mentioned circumstances, the order passed by the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue dated 8-12-2007 in file No, 62/07 is not sustainable, which is hereby set aside. The instant writ petition is accepted in the terms, indicated above.