By this order, I propose to dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 1223/84, 1224/84, 1225/84, 1226/84, 1227/84 and 1228/84 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
2. The petitioners herein; by means of these constitutional petitions assail the validity of order, dated 4-3-1984 of the learned Member, (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby he revoked the sale of the disputed land through registered sale-deeds earlier made in favour of the petitioners and, cancelled the mutations sanctioned in pursuance thereof.
3. The dispute in these cases relates to agricultural land measuring 315 Acres 6 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in Chak No. 618/GB Tehsil Samundri District Faisalabad. The petitioners claim that on 22- 12-1966 they participated in open auction for having the land in dispute on lease for a period of ten years commencing from Rabi 1967 to Kharif 1976. They being the highest bidders were allotted the land and on 21-2-1967 were put in possession thereof. The petitioners further claim that in the year 1976 they applied for grant of proprietary rights in the land and Malik Riaz Hussain, the then Colony Assistant, recommended sale of the State land at the rate of Rs.100 per Acre in their favour. Mr. Naveed Asif, the then District Collector, Faisalabad on 22-12-1976 approved the proposal for the grant of proprietary rights in favour of the petitioners. The transaction of sale of the disputed land was completed on 9-1-1977 by execution of registered sale-deeds in their favour.
It appears that somewhere in 1983 Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, an Officer of the Board of Revenue in the course of audit inspection found that fraud and forgery had been committed by the petitioners in collusion with officers /officials of Faisalabad District in manipulating sale of the State land at nominal price in their favour, thereby causing great loss to the Government Exchequer.
The matter was placed before Mr. S.M. Naseem, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who directed registration of case against the petitioners and others responsible for the commission of fraud and forgery. Consequently, on 5-3-1983 F.I.R. No. 68 under section 468/ 471/419/420, P.P.C.
Was registered at Police Station Tandlianwala District Faisalabad against the accused.
Afterwards the learned Member, Board of Revenue, opted to deal with the cases on judicial side and summoned the petitioners through publication in the newspaper. In the meantime, some of the petitioners moved application to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, for withdrawal of his order directing registration of criminal case against them, as they were not associated with the inquiry leading to the registration of case against them. This application did not materialise and the learned Member, Board of Revenue, passed the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that at no stage the petitioners were heard or provided opportunity to defend the sale of the suit land in their 'favour. It was submitted that the petitioners were not allowed to inspect the file nor supplied copy of the impugned order for over a period of a month from the date of application. It was only through the indulgence of this Court that the copy of the impugned order was provided to them on 8-4-1984. It was next contended that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who had earlier directed registration of criminal case against the petitioners was biased against them and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
5. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, learned Additional Advocate-General, on the other hand submitted that it is established on record that the petitioners in collusion with Revenue Staff of District Faisalabad committed fraud and forgery initially in obtaining State land, on lease and thereafter, having the same sold in their favour. It was urged that this Court in writ jurisdiction would not allow them to retain illegal gains secured by fraud. It was next contended that the learned Member, Board of Revenue directed registration of the case against the accused only in his administrative capacity which could not influence his judicial mind when he decided the case in suo motu revisional jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he relied on Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Sarkar PLD 1969 Azad J & K 22 and Fazal Din v. Commissioner Peshawar Division PLD 1968 Pesh. 30.
6. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on the file. It is not denied that the Audit Officer made a report in this case highlighting the irregularities committed in leasing out and thereafter sale of the land in dispute to the petitioners. This report together with the documents on which it was based was presumably placed before the learned Member who after applying his mind to the facts of the case directed registration of criminal case against the petitioners and others. In pursuance of his order a criminal case stands already registered against the accused. It is also an admitted fact that later on he took cognizance of the matter on the judicial side and in suo motu revisional jurisdiction revoked sale of the State land earlier made in favour of the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners, on facts may be true or otherwise, the contention of the petitioners that they were not provided reasonable opportunity to defend the sale of suit land in their favour and that they were not supplied the certified copy of the impugned order in time, is not without force. The circumstances of this case do indicate that the learned Member, did not decide these cases with open mind. I do not agree that the learned Member when directed registration of case against the petitioners and others, did not apply his mind to the facts of the case or that he passed that order just in routine.
7. The authorities cited by the learned Additional Advocate-General are distinguishable. In Muhammad Afzal Khan's case mere accord of sanction for prosecution was held an administrative action, as distinguishable from judicial or quasi-judicial function. Similarly, in Fazal Din's case the action of the Commissioner making reference of a case under section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act VII of 1963, to the Tribunal was held administrative and was not held disqualified to hear the appeal as Tribunal.
It is well-established that the doctrine of bias is one of the important principles of natural justice. It postulates that justice should not only be done but manifestly seem to be done. The Member, Board of Revenue, in exercise of his judicial or quasi-judicial function ought to have refrained himself from hearing the case as he had previously got registered criminal case against the petitioners in this behalf.
8. Without expressing any opinion on merits so that it may not prejudice the case of either of the parties, I am of the view that the circumstances of the instant case squarely attracted the doctrine of bias, thereby disqualifying the learned Member, Board of Revenue, to have passed the impugned order. Consequently, these petitions are allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
I am told that Mr. S.M. Naseem, learned Member, Board of Revenue, has since retired, the cases are, therefore, remitted to his successor for expeditious fresh decision after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before him on 9-3-1986.
There shall be no order as to costs.