' This petition calls in question the legality of the orders, dated 14-11-1979 and 12-3-1980, passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the revision and review petition filed by the petitioners against the order, dated 25-10-1979 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore were rejected.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that Consolidation Scheme pertaining to village Kotli Sehole, District Sheikhupura was confirmed under section 10(3) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 on 30-6-1977 by Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order before the Collector (Consolidation), which was partly accepted on 18-3-1979. The parties assailed the aforementioned order by means of appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore. The latter vide his order, dated 25-10- 1979 accepted the appeal filed by the respondent whereas that filed by the petitioners was rejected and restored the order of Consolidation Officer. The petitioners thereafter filed revision petition against the aforementioned order, dated 25-10-1979 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore and the same was dismissed in limine on 14-11-1979 by Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The petitioners also filed a review petition against the order, dated 14-11-1979 and that also failed on 12-3-1980 before respondent No. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Member, Board of Revenue although formulated points raised by the petitioners against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, yet did not advert to them and decided the revision petition on irrelevant consideration. It was submitted that respondent No. 1 has not properly exercised revisional jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law. It was also asserted that the petitioners' review petition was also rejected by respondent No. 1 without applying conscious mind to the points raised therein.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is not assailable in writ jurisdiction and relied on Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCMR 292. It was also submitted that no injustice has been done to the petitioners in allocating land, therefore, even on merits, no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by competent authority.
5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with reference to documents placed on the file establish that respondent No. 1 formulated the following points as mentioned in pare 3 of his order, dated 14-11-1979:--
(i) That the petitioners have a better claim over the land which was originally proposed to the petitioners.
(ii) That the area of the petitioners has been reduced in terms of class I.
(iii) That the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has wrongly held that the adjustments made by the Collector (Cons.) were inconsistent with the principles of consolidation.
6. The perusal of the aforementioned order shows that the respondent No. 1 did not advert to points Nos. 1 and 3 in the impugned order. The disposal of review petition also suffered for lack of proper consideration of the points raised therein.
7. Section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance of 1960 provides for the revisionsl jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers, which reads:-- "(1) The Board of Revenue may at any time call for the record of any proceedings under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer.
(2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer under his control.
(3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for the record under subsection (2), he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.
(4) The Board of Revenue may in any ease call for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under subsection (2) or reported to him under subsection (3), pass such order as it or he thinks fit: Provided that no order shall be passed under this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard."
'It is thus clear that the Member, Board, of Revenue after calling for the records either on his own motion or on application made to him, by interested person is empowered to pass such order as he thinks fit. It means that the revision provided under the statute has wider scope than the revision petition provided under section 115, C.P.C. The revisional power under the Ordinance is not subject to the restrictions as mentioned under section 115, C.P.C. In the case of Ali Abid Zaidi v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1967 Lah. 836, a comparison was drawn between the Civil Revision under. section 115, C.P.C. and the Revision Petition as provided under the Settlement Act and it was observed that scope of revision under the statute was wider than that provided under C.P.C.
' In this view of the matter, it was obligatory for the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, while exercising revisional jurisdiction to apply his conscious mind to the relevant points raised before him in order to pronounce complete and effectual judgment in the matter. In Iftikhar Azeem v. Lahore Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and another PLD 1978 Lah. 988, the orders passed by the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect as the same suffered for want of proper application of mind. The Tribunals, no doubt, are vested with exclusive jurisdiction to decide particular matters within the framework of the provisions of statute, but they are required to give reasons in support of their finding.
8. Ghulam Qadir's case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not be applicable to the circumstances of the instant case at this stage because without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this case is being remitted to learned Member, Board of Revenue for fresh decision.
9. As a result of the above discussion, this petition succeeds and is accepted. The impugned orders, dated 14-11-1979 and 12-3-1980 passed by respondent No. 1 are declared to be of no legal consequence.
' In the result, this case is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue who shall decide the revision petition in the light of the observations made above, after hearing the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.