' These suo motu proceedings under section 13(1)(a) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, were initiated on the application submitted by Mr. Hamayun Ijaz petitioner to the then Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide U.
0., dated 30-6-1980 referred the matter to Settlement Officer, Leiah io look into the grievances of the petitioner and take appropriate action under intimation to the Board of Revenue.
2. The Settlement Officer reported that there was substance in the allegations of the petitioners as they were given ghair mumkin abadi in lieu of their agricultural land. This ghair mumkin abadi was evacuee property and as such should have been allotted to refugee claimants and not to the petitioners whose entitlement of 32 Kanals and 12 Marlas was practically reduced to nil. He then suggested that at that stage the grievances could only be redressed by the Board of Revenue through suo motu revision under section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
3. The case was examined in depth and the facts were placed before the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue for orders, The Member (Consolidation), Mr. A. K. Khalid wrote in his order dated 12-4-1981 that Consolidation Department had become functus officio after finalization of the scheme and return of the record alongwith Misl Haqiat prepared under section 15 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, further directed that the petitioner might be advised to approach the District Collector for correction of record in accordance with the provisions of section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
4. Mr. Hamayun Ijaz petitioner with reference to his application dated 18-3-1981 was informed by Secretary (Cons.), Board of Revenue, vide Letter No, 257-81/304 P. S. C., dazed 22nd April, 1981, that his application had been considered in detail in the Board of Revenue and filed. The reason given for this was that after the confirmation of the scheme in the year 1974 and the return of Misl Haqiat and the village to the Revenue authorities the Consolidation Department had become functus officio. He was advised to approach the District Collector for the correction of record in accordance with the provisions of section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
5. The petitioner Ijaz Hamayun not satisfied with the above decision of the Member (Cons.) again represented and the case was again examined in the Board of Revenue. Full facts of the case including the decision of the Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue conveyed to the petitioner vide Letter No, 257-81/304, dated 22nd April, 1981, mentioned above, were placed before the Member (Cons.) for the second time. Mr. A. K. Khalid Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, wrote on the tile on 5-3-1983 that this was a fit case to be heard by this (M. B. R's,) Court under its suo motu jurisdiction under section 13(1)(a) of the Ordinance. He then directed that parties concerned should be called for hearing. In other words, the learned Member (Cons.), reopened the case to review his previous order passed under suo motu jurisdiction after a period of about two years.
6. Parties were summoned for regular hearing. Several adjournments were given by my predecessor Mr. A. K. Khalid but the case was not heard. On his transfer the case was entrusted to me for disposal.
7. I have heard counsels of both the parties at length and have carefully gone through the record of this case. As stated above, the former Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Mr. A. K. Khalid first rejected the application of Mr. Hamayun Ijaz petitioner and refused to take action under suo motu jurisdiction but after about two years he admitted the same petition for regular hearing in order to review his previous order. The perusal of record shows that no new material or fresh evidence was brought on record to justify review of previous order.
8. Mr. A. K. Khalid, Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue had himself ruled in case Muhammad Din v.
The State etc. (1), that "a case once decided in revision by the Board of Revenue, either suo motu under clause (a) or on the application made by an aggrieved person under clause (b) of section 13(1) of the Ordinance, becomes final and unless reviewed within the prescribed limitation of 90 days cannot be reopened and decided afresh, in view of the section 7 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957". The case, therefore, could not be re-opened after about two years in view of the provisions of law quoted in the above ruling of the same Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue.
9. The petitioner Hamayun Ijaz etc. Could seek the remedy in the Courts of Collector (Cons.) and Additional Commissioner (Cons.) within the period provided by law but they failed to do so. Now to circumvent the limitation hurdle they chose to invoke the special jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. Mr. Hamayun Ijaz has not mentioned anywhere in his application as to why he could not knock at the doors of the lower Courts. The answer, to this question can be no other than this that he wanted to cover the delay and save time and money by directly applying to the Board of Revenue for suo motu action.
10. It is true that the petitioners could not get a fair deal in the consolidation scheme. But they are to be blamed for sleeping over the matter for about six years and not agitating in the Courts concerned to get their grievances redressed. At this stage when the consolidation has been finalized, misl haqiat prepared and village returned to the Revenue Department long ago and in between Settlement Operations also finalized, the case cannot be reopened. Reopening of this case would mean the opening of Pandora's box. This should not be done. The consolidation scheme and the Settlement of the village finalized long ago cannot be scraped by ignoring all rules and regulations, for the sake of the two petitioners, who have not been vigilant and carefu enough to look after their interests for a long time. Under the circum stances, the suo motu revision petition is dismissed.
(1) PLD 1982 Rev. 2