SHAHID W AHEED, J.---Dispute in this case relates to land measuring 43-kanals 6-marlas situated within the revenue estate of Isa Khel, Tehsil Isal Khel, District Mainwali. The petitioner purchased the said land from one Muhammad Khan against a consideration of Rs.2000/-, and that was incorporated in the revenue record vide mutation No.17 dated 14.01.1993. After a lapse of more than a decade, the respondents Nos.6 and 7 made a compliant before the Collector (Consolidation), Mianwali for review of the said mutation on the ground since the land came under Municipal limits after consolidation, it could only be transferred through a registered sale-deed. The said application was disposed of by the Collector (Consolidation) vide his order dated 14.09.2013 by giving direction to the Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer to first examine as to whether the land mentioned in the Mutation No.17 was situated within the Municipal limits or not and then decide the matter after hearing the parties. The petitioner appealed against the said order before the Addl.
Commissioner (Consolidation) Sargodha. This appeal was rejected vide order dated 04.06.2015 and that was maintained by the Board of Revenue, Punjab through order dated 16.11.2016. So, this constitutional petition.
2. Impeaching the orders made in the revenue hierarchy the petitioner's counsel submits that the Revenue Officers while passing the impugned orders had neither taken into consideration the locus standi of the respondents Nos.6 and 7 nor appraised the question of limitation. It is further contended that the Consolidation Officer under the law had no lawful authority to review the mutation and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that till date the petitioner has not been heard or associated by any officer/authority in any inquiry for demarcation of land. He, therefore, requests that by setting aside the impugned orders the matter be remitted to the Collector (Consolidation) for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
3. The above noted request made by the petitioner's counsel has not been opposed by the learned Addl. A.G.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.6 and 7, however, opposes this petition and submits that since the land falls within the territorial limits of the Municipal Committee it could not be transferred in the name of the petitioner through Mutation No.17 and thus, the orders made in the revenue hierarchy do not warrant any interference.
5. After hearing and perusing the record I find substance in this petition. It is clear that none of the above-stated arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioner was appraised by the revenue officers. It is also admitted that the land was originally owned by Muhammad Khan and he never raised any objection to the transfer of his 43-kanals 6-marlas land to the present petitioner. It is also not denied that the petitioner was never got involved in any inquiry into the demarcation of the land. All these omissions lead me to believe that the orders made in the revenue hierarchy are not the outcome of fair trial. I have, therefore, no option but to make an order of remand.
6. In view of above, this petition is allowed and all the impugned orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are hereby set aside and declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and consequently, the matter is remitted to respondent No.3 i.e. Collector (Consolidation), Mianwali with a direction to decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned and through a well-reasoned speaking order.
7. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No.3 on 07.03.2022.