RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---The titled appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the learned High Court dated 24.04.2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed in limine.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on the application of respondents Nos,1 to 8, herein, the shamilat deh land, measuring 3 kanal, 3 marla, comprising survey Nos,203 and 204, situate at village Islamabad, Tehsil Sehnsa, District Kotli was reserved for the construction of a School, whereupon, the appellant, herein, filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner , Mirpur on the ground that he is owner of the land in village Islamabad, and under law he owns respective share in the shamilat deh land. The Commissioner , Mirpur , dismissed the appeal on 24.04.201 1 Resultantly , the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of Member Board of Revenue, for cancellation of the orders of the Collector , Kotli and Additional Commissioner , Mirpur , by filing an appeal but the same was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue on 03.07.2013. A review petition was also filed before the Member Board of Revenue which also met the same fate vide order dated 21.11.2014. Finally , the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court through which he challenged the orders of the Member Board, of Revenue. The learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 24.04.2018, dismissed the writ petition in limine, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Raja Zaffar Hussain Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue the case on merits, however , he was asked that as the learne d High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground on non- impleadment of the necessary party , therefore, at first he would have to meet this point. He submitted that the learned High Court was not justified to dismiss the writ petition in limine on the ground that the Board of Revenue has not been arrayed as party , as both the orders which were challenged by way of writ petition were passed by the Member Board of Revenue, who was duly arrayed as party . As no order was passed by the Board of Revenue, therefore, under law there was no occasion to array the Board of Revenue as party . The learned counsel further added that the law on the strength of which the impugned order has been passed, has no relevancy with the case in hand.
4. Conversely , Mr. Fiaz Haider Nawabi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents fully supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned High Court has decided the writ petition in the light of law laid down by this Court in a number of pronouncements and has not committed any illegality. In this regard, he drew the attention of this Court towards the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant challenged the order of Member Board of Revenue dated 03.07.2013; through which the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and order dated 21.11.2014, whereby the review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed; by filing writ petition before the High Court and did not array the Board of Revenue as party . The learned counsel for the appella nt has taken the stance that the orders were passed by the Member Board of Revenue, who was duly arrayed as party and there was no need to implead the Board of Revenue as party . We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant as in a number of reports this Court has held that under the provisions of section 6(3) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993, every order passed by the Member Board of Revenue shall be deemed to be an order of Board of Revenue and withou t arraying the Board of Revenue as party in the line of the respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable. In a case reported as Muhammad Malik and another v. Manzoor Hussain and 90 others [2015 SCR 259], this Court while referring to a plethora of judgments held as under:-- "8. Under section 6(3) of the Azad Jamm u and Kashmir Board of Revenue Act, 1993, every order passed by a Member Board of Revenue shall be deemed to be an order of Board of Revenue. If such order is challenged then the Board of Revenue is a necessary party to be impleaded in the line of the respondents. Without arraying the Board of Revenue as party in the line of respondents the writ petition is not mainta inable. This view is consistently being followed since long. In a case reported as Kh. Ghulam Qadir and 5 others v. Divisional Forest Officer Demarcation and 3 others [1996 SCR 161] in para 6, it was observed as under:-
6. We have also noticed that the appellants before the High Court did not array Board of Revenue as one of the respondents. Member Board of Revenue was however , arrayed as one of the respondents in the writ petition. In our view the writ petition filed before the High Court by the appellants was not competent on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. Our aforesaid view is fortified by case reported as Muhammad Ashraf v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir [PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 102] and an unreported case of this Court titled Syed Muhammad Akram Shah v. Chairman Allotment Committee (Civil Appeal No, 7 of 1995 decided on 24.7.1995. In the latter referred case it was observed that the Allotment Committee had the powers to make allotments under the relevant law, the same was a legal person within the meaning of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. It was observed that as the Committee was not impleaded as a party the writ petition was incompetent and was dismissed, despite the fact that no objection was raised in that regard, from the opposite side; it was also observed that such an objection can be gone into by the Court suo motu without any objection from the opposite party . Identical view was taken in cases reported as Muhammad Resham Khan v. Chairman Inspection Team [1990 CLC 1355 ]. Abdul Hamid v. Muhammad Zameer [1980 PSC 1014] and Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property (1992 SCR 214)'
This judgment was followed in the subsequent cases reported as Zahid Mehmood Shah and 24 others v. Azad Government and 14 others [2011 SCR 159], Syed Miskeen Shah v. Custodian Evacuee Property 4 others [2000 SCR 153] and Abdul Rasheed and 4 others v. Member Board of Revenue [2013 SCR 222], The writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the sole ground." As in the light of the principle of law enunciated by this Court; if any order of Member Board of Revenue is challenged before the High Court by filing writ petition, without arraying the Board of Revenue as party , the writ is not maintainable, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition in the instant case on this sole ground and has not committed any illegality .
Resultantly , the instant appeal being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.