SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.- Through the instant writ petition petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of orders dated 02.12.2010 and 18.11.2021 passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue Punjab, respectively.
2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the instant petition are that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Nazir Ahmad was allotted land comprising rectangle No.583/1, killas No.1 to 25 and rectangle No.583/5, killas No.1 to 25, measuring 400-kanals, situated in Tobi Jamalwali Mouza Sheikh Nasir Cholistan Area, District Bahawalpur, under Shahi Muzara Scheme vide Book No.6, Pert No.26, in the year 1951. Under the said scheme 41601-acres barren land was allotted to 836 persons.
The land allotted to the predecessor of the petitioners being bunjer and barren was developed and was made cultivable by the petitioners by spending huge amount. However, after the merger of Bahawalpur in the Province of Punjab in the year 1954, the Director Agriculture cancelled the permits of some people including the petitioners vide order dated 19.07.1955, but since the said order was passed without issuance of any notice, the petitioners remained unaware of the same and continued to occupy the land. Consequently, the said order was challenged before different forums and ultimately the Hon`ble Supreme Court while deciding different Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1006 of 1996, remanded the cases to the Board of Revenue with the following observation:- "In our view, the basic question in issue is as to who are the allotees of the suit land and who are occupying it unauthorizedly. This is a question of fact, which is to be determined on the basis of allotment order/title documents to be produced by the alleged allotees before the competent forum. The occupants who have no title have no legal right to remain in occupation and, therefore, they are liable to ejected. In our view, it will be just and proper to remand the cases to the Board of Revenue, Punjab with the direction to ask the occupants to produce their allotment/title documents, if any, and in case some of the occupants succeed in producing the allotment/title documents and also show that they have complied with the conditions of the allotment and the breach, if any, is condonable under the law, they will be allowed to continue to remain in possession. The occupants, who will fail to satisfy the Board of Revenue, Punjab as to their entitlement to be in possession, shall be ejected. The Board of Revenue, Punjab may issue public notices before adjudicating upon the question of title so that no body may be have a grievance that he was not heard. We may also observe that the cases, which were remanded by the Board of Revenue, Punjab to the Commissioner should be recalled and the same should also be decided by the Board of Revenue."
3. In order to implement the direction of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, the Board of Revenue constituted a scrutiny committee, which scrutinize the matter by inviting the claimants under Shahi Muzarian Scheme and submitted its report. Thereafter the Board of Revenue in consultation with the functionaries of Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, evolved a criteria to verify allotment & possession of allottees/claimants in the following manner:- a. Only the real son, wife, daughter, grand children of the original allottee or someone claiming succession under any law in force to such allottee will be considered as his legal heir, subject to the production of reliable evidence to the satisfaction of this court. b. The residents of districts other than Bahawalpur Division as proved from their documentary evidence will not be eligible for claiming any right of allotment since they had violated the conditions, not cultivated the land and shifted to other districts. c. The distant relatives of allottee who have died issueless will not be eligible because as per terms and conditions the allottee himself is not self cultivating the land. The lease has actually expired and their relatives have no right to claim the lease Under the law and policy the legal heirs can only claim transfer of lease right when the period of lease is still continued. d. The personal appearance of the original allottee or claimant under such allottee shall be necessary, who will prove his identity to the satisfaction of this court. e. The payment of dues at the time of allotment and subsequent payment of rent will be confirmed from Register Siah. f. In order to determine all claims against a Parrat (allotment Chit whether the person had filed a revision petition or not, the relevant book of `ljaznt Nama Kasht' will be examined and persons appearing will be heard to identify the real claimant in respect of particular `Ijazat Nama Kasht'.
This will be done in the presence of all the claimants to a particular parrat, their learned counsels and representative of CDA. g. The allottee/claimant after his identification to be original allottee or claimant will have to prove that the land in his possession was the one he was allotted according to the relevant `Ijazat Nama Kasht'. Those in possession of land other than the one allotted to them will be considered to be encroachers and dealt in accordance with the policy framed in this regard.
4. The learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab (respondent No.1), vide order dated 02.12.2010, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners in the following manner:- "Nazir Ahmad ID Card No.340-18-242990 R/o Chak No.70/Fateh, Bahawalnagar. He died on 09.01.1991 in the same Chak. The self-cultivation of land is not proved. The petition is dismissed."
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed a review petition, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.2), hence the instant petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A perusal of the report prepared by the scrutiny committee constituted by the Board of Revenue reveals that name of Nazir Ahmad predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been mentioned therein as claimant at serial No.368 and name of petitioner No.1 as a cultivator. Likewise, in Khasra Girdaweri for the years 2012 to 2015 name of Abdul Majeed petitioner No.1 has been mentioned against rectangles No.583/1 and 583/5. It is also important to mention that in response to letter No.979/Litigation/CDA-2021, dated 06.09.2021 issued by the office of Director Revenue & Colonies, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, a report dated 18.09.2021 was submitted by Colonization Officer/Collector of CDA, showing the name of Nazir Ahmad son of Sultan Ali as permit holder in the area of Tobi Jamalwali and names of the petitioners as occupants for the last 40 - years under Shahi Mazara Scheme in view of Book No.6 Parat No.26. There is also a report dated 16.02.2019 issued by the Girdawer Cholistan Department which also shows the predecessor of the petitioners namely Nazir Ahmad as permit holder of land measuring 400-kanals bearing rectangles No.583/1 and 582/5 in the area of Tobi Jamalwali and the petitioners as occupants of the said land, out of which an area of 35-Acres is under their cultivation.
7. It appears that respondent No.1 made efforts to collect the record for and against the petitioners by constituting a scrutiny committee in order to comply with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also produced in the shape of reports of different officers, but unfortunately failed to consider the same while passing the order dated 02.10.2010. Respondent No.1 did not discuss any document produced by the petitioners or any of the reports attached with the report of the scrutiny committee and passed the impugned order in a slipshod manner only with the observation "the self cultivation of land is not proved". Furthermore, the petitioners case also falls within the criteria evolved by the Board of Revenue with the consultation of functionaries of Cholistan Development Authority, but respondent No.1 did not even discuss or consider the said criteria while passing the impugned order. In the circumstances, the order dated 02.10.2010 is non-speaking and unreasoned and as such is not sustainable.
8. As regards the order dated 18.11.2021, whereby the review petition of the petitioners was dismissed by respondent No.2 with the observation that it was time barred and that there was limited scope to review the impugned order. Respondent No.2 also observed that the petitioners did not raise any new ground in their petition and that their stance was also ready well taken while adjudicating the revision petition. In the said order Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 regarding review has also been reproduced. However, a perusal of the impugned order and the provisions of Section 8 ibid, reveals that respondent No.2 did not apply the said provisions of law in its true perspective. A bare perusal of Section 8(1) ibid reveals that under the said provisions the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 02.10.2010 had the right to apply for review thereof even on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time of passing the order. Since the order dated 02.10.2010 was passed without going through the record and discussing the same and the petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed through a single sentence "the self-cultivation of the land is not proved", the observations made in the order dated 18.11.2021 regarding limited scope and non-raising new ground are against the facts for the reason that the earlier order was passed without discussing any ground taken in the petition and going through the record produced therein. As regards the ground of limitation, admittedly Section 8(2) ibid provides a period of ninety days for filing an application for review of a decree or order from the date of that decree or order, but since the order under review was passed without taking into consideration the relevant record, it was a non speaking order and should have been reviewed after discussing the record in detail in view of the principle that no one should be condemned unheard. In the circumstances, the order dated 18.11.2021 has illegally been passed without taking into consideration the relevant record as well as the law on the subject and as such is not sustainable.
9. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 01.12.2010 and 18.11.2021 passed by respondents No.1 and 2, respectively, are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.