SARDAR MUHAMMAD EJAZ KHAN, J. -- The captioned writ petition has been addressed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 whereby a following relief has been implored by the petitioners:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the order of the respondent .No. 1, dated 25.10.2016, order of respondent No. 2, dated 30.01.2012, order of respondent No. 3 dated 15.02.201 1, order of respondent No. 4, dated 04.04.2010 and order of respondent No. 4, dated 07.06.2010 may kindly he set-aside and be issued the directions to the Revenue Authorities of District Kotli to divide the disputed land measuring 901 Kanals, 18 Marlas of Khewat No 18 Khata Nos. 297 to 318 and 318 to 338, situated at Village Khanka Koterah, Tehsil Charhoi, District Kotli (AK) between legal co-shares of land including petitioners and respondents here according to their proportionate shapes by measuring the disputed land and remaking the Naqsha 3 to 7 and Sanad Nama s in favour of all real owners of land according the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners against the respondents."
2. Preliminary arguments have been heard.
3. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case, a perusal of body of writ petition transpires that Board of Revenue was necessary party in the instant writ petition, hence, without impleading necessary party writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that although Member Board of Revenue has been incorporated in the memo. of writ petition who has passed the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 yet Board of Revenue has not been arrayed as party in the line of respondents because the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue would be deemed to be an order or decree of Board of Revenue and on the basis of which Board of Revenue is necessary party in the case in hand in the light of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993. For proper appreciation of the matter sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, supra, is reproduced as under:-- - "6. Conduct of Business.-- (1) The Board may distribute its business amongst its Members and may, by rules, regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it.
(2) xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx
(3) Any order made or a decree passed, by a member shall be deemed to be the order or decree of the Board."
On this point the Hon'ble Apex Court has resolved the controversy between the parties in a case titled Zahid Mehmood Shah and 24 others v. Azad Govt. & 14 others [2011 SCR 159], wherein, it has been observed as under: -- "It is evident from the record that Membe r Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 25th April, 2001.
The order was challenged by way of writ petition in the High Court and only Member Board of Revenue was arrayed as party . The Board of Revenue was not arrayed as party in the case . For resolving the proposition whether the Board of Revenue is necessary party or not, we have to resort to Section 6(3) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993. y It provides that any order made or decree passed by a Member Board of Revenue would be deemed to 'be the order or decree of Board of Revenue, therefore, the Board of Revenue is a necessary party .
Reliance can also be placed on a case titled Kh. Ghulam Qadir & 5 others v. Divisional Forest Officer Demarcation & 3 others [1996 SCR 161].
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 25.10.2016 has been passed in appeal whereas under Section 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993 an alternate and efficacious remedy is also available to the petitioners in shape of revision before the Board of Revenue, hence, the petitioners should have availed the remedy and in presence of the alternate remedy the writ petition is not maintainable. 'For proper appreciation of the matter Section 7 of the Act, supra, is reproduced as under:-- "(2) Any person aggrieved by an 'order made or a decree passed by a Member , in such class of cases as may be specified in the rules framed under Section 9 of this Act, may apply to the Board for revision of such order or decree, and if the full Board. considers that there are sufficient reasons for doing so, it may revise that Order or decree and pass such further order as it nay think fit after hearing the applicant: Provided that no revision shall lie to the Full Board against an order muck or a decree passed by a Member in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
(3) Every application under sub-section (2) for revision of an order or decree shall he made within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or decree."'
5. By taking into consideration the above provisions of law, the petitioners are neither an aggrieved party within the meaning of Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 nor have locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of challenging the impugned orders and filing the instant writ petition, hence, the same, having no statutory backing, is hereby dismissed in limine in the manner as indicated hereinabove.