Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, J.-
1. Facts shortly are that the petitioner filed an application under section 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the Assistant Commissioner of Tehsil Gagra in District Buner, for partition of certain land situated in revenue estate of Shalbandai. The parties are brothers and sisters inter se. The respondents contested the application by submitting their reply. The 'significant point they raised was that a private partition has taken place which, as per their stance, was admitted fact. The AAC, however, accepted the application vide an order passed on 09/02/2018. The aforesaid order was maintained by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on appeal (order dated 17/04/2018), the Additional Commissioner in revision (order dated 20/09/2019), but reversed by the Member II of the Board of Revenue by the order dated 06/08/2020, impugned herein.
2. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The record fully transpires that the plea of partition was raised right before the AC and maintained before other higher revenue forums. However, the plea prevailed with the Member-II of the Board of Revenue before whom a partition deed dated 22/05/1998 was produced. The Member-II, thus, remanded the matter for the reason that it requires recording of pro and contra evidence to ascertain the genuineness of the partition for two reasons: first, the plea of private partition needs recording of pro and contra evidence and also to find out if the agricultural nature of the land in question has been changed through construction therein.
4. Three points are worth consideration. Firstly, the petitioners have not arrayed the Provincial Government, Revenue Officials and most particularly, the Member-II of the Board of Revenue whose order has been called into question. In this respect, reliance is placed on Qazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others (2019 SCMR 648).
In the case, the Apex Court held: "It is also noticed that the petitioner did not implead the Province of Punjab as a party in the constitutional petition. This was despite the fact that the said Government was a necessary and proper party in the case. In the circumstances, even otherwise, the constitutional petition was not competent and was rightly dismissed by the Division Bench."
Further reliance may be placed on the following judgments: i. Liaqat, Ali and 8 others v. Municipal Corporation, Mirpur and 5 others (1997 CLC 692) [Supreme Court (AJ&K)]; and ii. Water and Power Development Authority/ Lahore Electricity Supply Company Limited through Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheikhpura v. Messrs Bhatti Ice and Rice Mills, Buchiki through Proprietor and another (2004 YLR 1263) [Lahore].
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Chaudhry Asif Ali v. Joint Census Commissioner, Statistics Division, Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Population Census Organization Wing, Islamabad and 7 others (2015 CLC 837) [Lahore]. However, the same is of no advantage to him because the Joint Census Commissioner, a pubic functionary was arrayed as a party.
5. Secondly, the impugned order is a remand order which is not open to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Allah Ditta and others v. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue and others (2018 SCMR 1177), wherein it was observed: "Order of remand is not a final order and simply sends the matter for re-examination for the second time. It does not finally determine the claim or the rights of the parties. The forum to which the case is sent for fresh decision is free to re-examine the case and pass a fresh judgment. Against any such subsequent decision or judgment, alternate remedy is available to the parties. Further, Board of Revenue is the highest Court of appeal and revision in revenue cases and is a controlling authority in all matters connected with the administration of land, collection of land revenue, preparation of land record and other matters. In this background, the Courts after having judicially examined the remand order passed by the Board of Revenue have expressed reluctance to interfere and for these reasons have maintained that order of remand would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction."
Further reliance may be placed on the following judgments: i. Malik Rab Nawaz through Legal Heirs v. Mst. Saban and another (2019 MLD 1) [Lahore]; ii. Mst. Salim-un-Nisa and 5 others v. Aziz and another (2009 CLC 860) [Peshawar]; and iii. Akbar Ali and 18 others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and 14 others (2007 CLC 768) [Lahore].
6. Thirdly and finally, it is abundantly clear that factual controversy is involved which, too, is not amenable to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer v. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 415), it was held: "In Constitutional jurisdiction Court does not go into a question involving minute details nor can it decide facts of which no foundation is laid, unless it is shown that such controversy is devoid of supporting record, or perverse. It hardly needs any elaboration that "the superior Courts should not involve themselves into investigations of disputed question of fact which, necessitate taking of evidence. This can more appropriately be done in the ordinary Civil Procedure for litigation by a suit. This extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily, for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts."
7. As sequel to the above discussion, this petition is found bereft of merits. It is, thus, dismissed.