ABDUL SHAKOOR, J---Through this common judgment I intend to dispose of the instant Writ Petition No,66-B/2011 along with connected Writ Petition No,374-B/ 2011 titled Sahib Shah v. Member Board of Revenue etc: though question of facts, despite the same parties, in both the petitions were not the same, however, the decisions in both the cases are verbatim and same.
2. Gist of relevant facts of the instant petition are that respondent No,5 submitted an application for partition of Khata Nos, 283 to 285, fully detailed in the partition application, before the Assistant Collector Lakki against the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner and others. The learned trial court summoned the respondents and after concluding the evidence, Girdawar Circle was appointed as Ahl-e-Commission to prepare the mode of partition, who prepared the same which was confirmed and approved by the DDOJ Lakki Marwat vide his order dated 20.12.1985. That in consequence of the said mode of partition of DDOJ Lakki Marwat, a partition mutation No,22936 has been entered and attested on 25.5.1987. On 06.7.2005 the respondent No, 22 submitted application for setting-aside Ex-parte proceedings/Ex-parte order against respondent No,4 (Mst: Lal Bibi). The learned DDOJ Lakki Marwat on acceptance of said application set-aside all the proceedings including mutation of partition etc: vide order dated 18.8.2005. Not contended with impugned order, the petitioner moved an appeal before District Officer, Revenue/Collector Lakki Marwat, who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 28.3.2007. Feeling aggrieved from the order of District Officer Revenue/ Collector Lakki Marwat, the petitioner preferred revision petition before District Officer Revenue Appellate Court No,1 Bannu which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2007. Aggrieved thereby from the order of District Office Revenue Appellate Court No,1 Bannu, the petitioner filed second revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who also dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 15.01.2011, hence, the instant Writ Petition with the following prayer:- "It is respectfully prayed that by accepting objection petition of the petitioner, to declare all the impugned orders as illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and by dismissing the petition of the respondent No,22 to maintain the decision of DDOJ dated 20.12.1985 and mutation No,22936 dated 27.5.1987 along with said partition."
WRIT PETITION No, 374-B 2011.
3. Essential summarize facts of the instant petition are that respondent 1'40.5 has filed an application for partition of Khata Nos, 293 to 296 etc, fully detailed the facts therein, before the Assistant Collector, Lakki Marwat, against the predecessor-in interest of the petitioner and others.
After summoning the respondents, they appeared and after conclusion of evidence, one Shah Nawaz Girdawar Circle was appointed as Ahle-e-commission with direction to prepare the mode of partition by the trial court, who accordingly prepared the mode of partition but the same was objected, however, DDOJ Lakki Marwat vide order dated 24.6.2006 approved the said mode of partition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before District Collector, who vide order dated 28.3.2007 maintained the impugned mode of partition. Not contended with the said order of DOR Lakki Marwat, petitioner filed a Revision Petition before Presiding Officer Revenue Appellate Court No,1 Bannu, who also dismissed the Revision Petition of the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.2007. Being aggrieved from the order of Revenue Appellate Court No, I Bannu, the petitioner filed second revision petition before Member Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who also dismissed the said revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2011, hence, the instant Writ Petition with the following prayer:- "It is respectfully prayed that by accepting objection petition of the petitioner, to declare all the impugned orders as illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and to remand the case back to respondent No,4 for decision afresh after appointing fresh Ahl-ecommission for fresh mode of partition as per classification of land and possession thereof."
4. Learned counsel for petitioner in both Writ Petitions has contended that worthy Member Board of Revenue has rendered its decisions in both cases without going through the record, which manifest from impugned judgments. He further contended that 'facts of both revision petitions were quite different from each other but the order passed in both revision petitions are verbatim, which shows the worthy Member Board of Revenue has not decided the cases of petitioner rightly in accordance with law. He next contended that worthy Member Board of Revenue was vested with the power under the law to decide the cases of petitioner fairly, justly and rightly in accordance with law, but deciding the same without discussing their fact separately and assigning reasons thereof went outside of its jurisdiction which was vested in him by the law, thus, decisions so rendered are without jurisdiction.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing for respondents in both the Writ Petitions vehemently argued that worthy Member Board of Revenue has rendered orders impugned in both Writ Petitions in accordance with law so are with lawful authority and jurisdiction and thus not liable to be reversed by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article-199 of the Constitution. He further argued that learned counsel appearing for petitioner in both the Writ Petitions could not point-out specifically as to how the orders of Member Board of Revenue are without lawful authority and jurisdiction, in such situation both Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and orders impugned, very carefully.
7. I have carefully examined the orders of worthy Member Board of Revenue impugned herein through the above mentioned petitions viz-a-viz their respective record appended with the petitions. After minute examination of the impugned orders keeping in view their respective record which are appended with petitions, I am of the considered view that there is not an iota of difference between both the orders. As when both the orders do not reflect any difference of a word, than it is not possible to understand as on which facts of the case these orders were rendered. In the face of this position of the impugned orders, this Court is inclined to agree with the plea of the counsel of petitioner, the orders impugned herein are no orders in the eye of law. Thus, worthy Member Board of Revenue has committed such grave illegality in passing these orders which to the estimation or prudence of an ordinary person cannot be said to have been passed fairly, justly and rightly in accordance with law. Now it is well-settled that law vests jurisdiction in Tribunal, Authority and Court to decide fairly, justly and rightly in accordance with law. If the Authority, Tribunal and Court decides other-wise the above principle then it goes outside of its jurisdiction and in case of non-availability of any remedy for challenging such order of Authority, Tribunal and Court which is working in connection with the affairs of Province or Federation or is a local Authority can be assailed through the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article- 199 of Constitution. In this regard reliance can be placed on case of Province of Punjab through Collector Sargodah v. Muhammad Bakhs (2012 SCM R 664), wherein the apex Court in similar situation as of the orders of Member Board of Revenue has held as under:- "The very condition for the conferment of a jurisdiction on a Court of Law is that it should decide every lis before it fairly, justly and in accordance with law, where a Court or a Tribunal make an error of law on which the decision of the case depends, it goes outside its jurisdiction."
Further reference can be made to cases of Muhammad Nazir Khan v. Ahmad and 2 others (2008 SCMR 4521), Province of Punjab through Collector District Khoshab, Jauharabad and others (2007 SCM R 554), Muhammad Ishaq v. Abdul Ghani and 3 others (2000 SCM R 1083), Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 1978 SC 447).
8. It is observed that there was no alternate remedy before the petitioner to assail the orders impugned herein of the worthy Member Board of Revenue which was passed by him in second revision petition, thus, he has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article-199 of the Constitution.
9. In the light of above, I accept the above petitions and set-aside the impugned orders dated 15.01.2011 and remand these cases to Member Board of Revenue Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which shall be deemed pending before it, for deciding afresh in the light of above observations by providing full opportunity of hearings to the parties.