Mr. Hasan Turab All, C. S. P., Member (Consolidation and Transport) Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision called for the record of the conso--lidation proceedings of village Rasinwal, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot, and on the 9th of May 1970, passed an order holding that the mode of partition adopted in this case was against instructions of the Board of Revenue as contained in memorandum No. 2761-68/1318-CH(P)1, dated the 10th of Decem--ber 1968, wherein it was written that in future all the areas situated within the limits of a Town Committee or Municipal Committee and the areas under cultivation but attached to such Town Committee or Municipal Committee should not be touched during consolidation operations.
The learned Member, Board of Revenue found that 460 kanals and 4 marlas which had been included in the mode of partition of this village should not have been brought under consolidation operations. After giving this finding he set aside the confirmation of the con--solidation scheme and directed that fresh consolidation should be made keeping in mind the law/rules/instructions on the subject and the mode of partition to be adopted in the case should cover non-urban area only. The learned Member Board of Revenue further directed that the parties should be given a proper opportunity of being heard with regard to their objections before the consolidation proceedings are again confirmed.
2. 58 petitioners whose names are given in the memo of writ petition have come up against the aforesaid order and direction of the learned Member, Board of Revenue under Article 98 of the late Constitution of 1962 with a prayer that the order passed by him on the 9th of May 1970, should be declared illegal, ultra vires and of no legal effect against them. The entire record of the Court of the learned Member, Board of Revenue was produced before me by a representative of that department for perusal. I have gone through the said record and have also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that only 16 out of the 58 writ petitioners were heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the others had no notice about the proceedings pending before him and as such, the impugned order which has been passed without issuing notice to all concerned was both against the rules of natural justice as well as the statutory provision as contained in section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance VI of 1960. On going through the record, however, I find that this contention was not correct. The learned Member. Board of Revenue had issued notice inter alia to all the residents of Rasinwal. I have also found that due proclamation by beat of drum in the village was made and according to me that constituted sufficient service in the case. That service was effected in the village is also evident from the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue wherein he has written that :-- " . . . A large number of land-owners of this village Ransiwal were present but none of them contradicted this point."
In the face of the abundant material on the record showing that all the residents of the village had sufficient notice of the proceedings before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, the point raised has no force.
3. The next point argued was that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had relied upon certain departmental instructions Issued by the Board of Revenue itself, wherein it was laid down that urban land within the limits of a Municipal Committee or Town Committee should not be touched during consolidation operations. Learned counsel argued that the Board of the Revenue had no jurisdiction to issue such Instructions and therefore, remand of the case on the basis of those instructions or for the endorsement thereof, was without lawful authority. The contention has no force. The West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings (Punjab Amendment Ordinance IV of 1971, added section 9-A in the West Pakistani- Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance VI of 1960. The newly added section reads as follows:- "9-A. Power to exclude from or include in consolidation any land.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, the Board of Revenue may, in the public interest, direct, by general or special order, that any land, holding or class thereof shall be excluded from or included in any scheme of consolida--tion before it is confirmed."
According to section 1(3) of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings (Punjab Amendment)
Ordinance IV of 1971, it was to come into force at once and was to be deemed to have come into force on the promulgation of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. It means that section 9-A was added retrospectively according to which the Board of Revenue possessed a power to direct by general or special order, that any land, holding or class thereof shall be excluded from or included in any scheme of consolidation before it is confirmed. The instructions of the Board of Revenue dated the 10th December 1968, therefore, were quite competent, intra vires and no defect can be found in them. When confronted with this situation learned counsel for the petitioner did not press his point any further.
4. No other point was argued before me.
5. The order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, it would thus appear, suffers from no defect and even otherwise also appears to be quite just, fair and equitable, inasmuch as it will permit the land-owners concerned to retain their urban land, which due to its inclusion in the Municipal Committee will naturally be more valuable for them. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.