' This order shall govern Writ Petition No, 14626 of 2014 and Writ Petition No, 27117 of 2014 as through them challenge has been made to the common orders passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab.
2. Dispute in this case relates to the entries made in Mutation No, 182 which was sanctioned on 31.05.1971. The Respondents No, 4 to 9 on 15.07.2010 challenged the said mutation through an appeal under Section 161 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the Collector, Lahore. This appeal was accepted vide order dated 09.12.2010 by holding that the land measuring 10 kanals comprising khasra No, 38, 330/2 and 556 was part of the said mutation. Validity of the said order was assailed by the petitioners (i,e, Noor Din, etc,) by preferring an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore. This appeal was treated as revision petition and the same was accepted vide order dated 15.09.2011 and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision. On remand, the Collector vide order dated 22.03.2012 again accepted the appeal and directed the R.O. Halqa to implement the order in letter and spirit by cancelling Mutation No,
182. On 29.03.2012 the petitioners (i,e, Noor Din, etc.) through an appeal challenged the order dated 22.03.2012 before the Additional Commissioner. This appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2013. The said order was assailed through, a revision i,e, ROR No, 696 of 2013 before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab.
This revision was dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2013. The penultimate paragraph of the said order reads as under: "I have heard the preliminary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record carefully. It iszevident that the learned counsel has emphasized upon the same arguments, which he had brought before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, who fully addressed all points, while passing the impugned order. The impugned order is a speaking order and covers all aspects of the case. Besides this, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any material irregularity in the impugned orders as well as in the order of Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, Lahore Cantt. Therefore, I find no justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of two lowers Courts in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 164 of Lana Revenue Act, 1967. The impugned order, dated 23.2.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)., Lahore along with order dated 22.3.2012, 29.6.2011 passed by EASO, Lahore Cantt is hereby upheld. Resultantly the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine being devoid of force. The file of this Court be consigned to the record room after fulfillment of its due completion."
3. Since the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore had decided the revision petition (i,e, ROR No, 696 of 2013) without assigning any cogent reason, the petitioners (i,e, Noor Din, etc.) through a petition under Section .8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 sought review of the order dated 02.04.2013. This review petition was dismissed by the learned Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 22.04.2014 by recording the following findings: "I have considered the review petition, written arguments of learned counsels for the parties, as well as record of case file carefully. The petitioners failed to produce any new and important matter or evidence before the Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has already been discussed in detail in the order under review. I find no reason to interfere in the order under review dated 02.04.2013 which is upheld and the instant review petition is dismissed.".
4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 2.4.2013 and 22.04.2014 of the learned Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue Punjab. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the orders impugned in this petition are not valid inter-alia for the reasons that the appeal preferred by the Respondents No, 4 to 9 before the Collector challenging the entries made in mutation No, 182 was patently barred by time but this fact was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders; that during pendency of the civil suit instituted by Zafar Ahmad (petitioner of Writ Petition No, 27117 of 2014) challenging the entries made in the revenue record, the revenue hierarchy had no lawful authority to set-aside Mutation No, 182; and, that the learned Member Board of Revenue while passing the impugned orders had not assigned any cogent reason.
5. After hearing the afore noted arguments I asked learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents (i,e, Din Muhammad, etc.) as to whether the orders passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue are sustainable as the .Same are bereft of any reason. In response to said query the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents could not offer any convincing reply. The perusal of penultimate paragraphs of the impugned orders which have been reproduced hereinabove unfolds that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab while passing the same had neither apprised the arguments canvassed before him nor recoded his own independent findings. Such a perfunctory disposal leads to wastage of judicial time and the time of the litigants as well, and therefore, is always, regarded as improper judgment and is of doubtful validity. It is an established principle of law that a judicial order must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Court has made an endeavor to marshal the facts for the resolution of the issues involved for their proper adjudication. The ultimate result may be reached by a diligent effort, but if the final order does not bear an imprint of that effort and on the contrary discloses arbitrariness of thought and action, the feeling with the painful results, that justice has neither been done nor seems to have beep done is inescapable. In this regard reference may be made to the case of "Muhammad Ameer and others versus Mst. Fajjan and ethers" (2012 CLC 1663).
6. Needless to observe here that Board of Revenue is the superior forum in the revenue hierarchy and it is expected from it that it would promote the culture of justification instead of culture of authority. In the instant case the orders recorded by the learned Member Board of Revenue, Punjab do not exhibit a judicious treatment of the case and the determination of dispute and, therefore, cannot be held a valid orders. Thus without going into the merit of the case these petitions are hereby allowed and orders dated 02.04.2013 and order dated 22,04.2014 are hereby set-aside and declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly the revision petition i,e, ROR No, 696 of 2013 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab who shall decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties and through a well-reasoned speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferable within a period of two (02) months. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Member Board of Revenue, Punjab on 14.12.2016.