SHAHID MUBEEN, J.---- Through this writ petition under Article 199 read with Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have called in question the validity and legality of order dated 22.04.2010 passed by Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahor e and Order dated 11.05.2004 passed by Executive District Of ficer (Revenue), Lahore.
2. Precisely , the facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that land in question was originally owned by Ali Khan who transferred the same in favour of Mehr Khan through Mutation No.1968 dated 13-4-1973. The petitioners instituted a suit for pre-emptio n on the basis of being tenant of the property in question initially before the learned Civil Judge which was transferred to the learned Collector . The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned Collector framed the relevant issues. Both the parties produced their evidence pro and contra to prove their respective contentions. The learned Assistant Commissioner/Cellector , Mianwali dismissed the suit. The appeal was preferred and vide order dated 12.05.1980 the case was remanded to the learned Collector concerned by the learned appellate court. The learned Collector Sadar Sub-Division Mianwali vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.1980 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the respon dent preferred an appeal before Additi onal Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, Sargodha who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.1981. The respondent filed revision petition before Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore which was also dismissed.
Thereafter , respondent filed writ petition before this Court which was accepted vide order dated 17.01.2000 and the case was remanded to Additional Comm issioner (Revenue), Sargodha which was ultimately entrusted to EDO(R)
Lahore who passed order dated 11.05.2004 in favour of the respondent. The order was assailed through revision petition vide ROR No.995/2004 and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.04.2010. Hence, this writ petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 22.04.2010 has been passed without discussing oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record; and that the petitioners are tenant which is reflected from Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/4.
4. On the other hand, learned AAG assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned Order .
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. From perusal of record it reveals that both the parties in order to prove their case produced oral as well as documentary evidence. The petitioners produced Noor Muhammad as PW-1 and Gull Jahan as PW-2 and also produced documentary evidence from Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/6. In the same way, respondent No.2 appeared as DW-2 and also produced documentary evidence from Exh.D/1 to Exh.D/13. The Mem ber Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore did not discuss the oral as well as documentary evidence of the petitioners Exh.P/1 to Exh.P/4 Khasra Girdawari for the period starting from 1971 to 1974, 1975 to 1976 and the entrie s contained therein, hence, the impugned order of Member , Board of Revenue is based on surmises and conjectures. The public functionaries are duty bound to decide the controversies after application of independent mind with reasons. It is manifestly clear that impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical way without applying independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was incumbent upon respondents to discuss each and every aspect of the case which is lacking in this case. Reference may be made to the case law reported as "Government of Pakistan through Director -General. Ministry Interior , Islama bad and others v. Farheen Rashid " (2011 SCMR 1). Further reference may be made to the case law reported as "Mian Ayaz Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior and 3 others " (PLD 2010 Lahore 230), "Messrs Saqib Brothers and another v. Messrs Ciba Geigy (Pakistan)
Limited" (1991 CLC 710) and "Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Pakis tan Chest Foundation " (PLD 1998 Lahore 100).
7. Sequel to the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and case is remanded to the Member , Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore who is directed to decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law after referring and discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties within a period of 30-days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. No order as to cost.