' These two connected writ petitions being Nos.1995 and '1996 of 1967 which involve common questions of law and based almost on similar facts are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The petitioners in each case have assailed the orders of revenue authorities from Collector to Member Board of Revenue on various grounds. The brief facts are that the petitioners were held to be in illicit cultivation and on a recommendation made by the Colony Assistant to the effect that the petitioners should be charged 40 times the Tawan for the relevant period, the Collector merely approved this proposal on 20-6-1967 in each case. It is evident from the impugned orders that before imposing the penalty, the petitioners were not heard and the mere report of the Colony Assistant was blessed. The matter was agitated in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who only modified the orders to the extent that the rent already paid by the appellants should be accounted for in total penalty of 40 times the laved revenue. The petitioners then went up before the Member Board of Revenue who dismissed the revision petitions after repelling the petitioners' objections that a notice was necessary before levying Tawan on them.
3. There are two infirmities patent on the face of the record. One is that the Collector was the competent authority to impose Tawan and he was himself to consciously apply his own mind to the merits of the case and this he could have done only after giving to the effected persons a fair opportunity of being heard. It has been laid down in P L 0 1964 SC 461 that requirements of natural justice are to be read into every enactment. It cannot be disputed that the orders passed in A these cases were prejudicial to the petitioners and they were burdened with material liabilities without conforming with the rules of natural justice. There can also be no mechanical blessing of the office report of the Colony Assistant because this will amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction. A statutory functionary who is conferred with any power under a statute must apply his own independent mind to the facts and merits of a case before passing an order in terms of or under the statute. This requirement does not appear to have been met.
' Secondly the view of the learned Member Board of Revenue that in the matter of imposition of Tawan, no hearing to the effected persons is required runs contrary to the laid down by the superior Courts to the effect that whenever an order prejudicial to a person is required C to be passed, rules of natural justice must be observed unless that statute itself provides to the contrary.
I have not been able to find any provision to the contrary in Colonization of Government Land Act and therefore, the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be quashed.
4. .Since it has been held that the Collector had not applied his own independent mind to the facts of each case in passing the orders, I remand the cases to the Collector, Faisalabad who shall decide the matters afresh after giving to the petitioners fair opportunity to be heard and raise whatever pleas available to them under the law including the evidence, if any, they wish to lead.
The writ petitions are, therefore, accepted and the cases are remanded to the Collector, Faisalabad. Since there is no contest being made on behalf of respondents but only an official is present with the record, there shall be no orders as to costs.