The dispute relates to 397 Kanals 13 Marlas of land the possession of which was given to the petitioners in pursuance as a decree of a Civil Court on 21-5-1977. Subsequently this land along with other land in the village was subjected to consolidation by the revenue authorities. The case of the petitioners is that during the consolidation proceedings the possession of the petitioners was disturbed without any sufficient cause. They challenged the orders of the Consolidation Officer, dated 3-8-1981, confirming the Scheme, in the Court of. The Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector (Cons.). The Collector was also seized of an appeal made by the respondent No.2. The Collector dismissed both the appeals by a single order of 27-3-1982. The petitioners and respondent 2 challenged the orders in revision before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order, dated 22-6-1982 remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision on the appeal with certain directions. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Additional Commissioner, dated 22- 6-1982 in the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition on 31-12-1984.
This brings the petitioners to the High Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.
2. The main question agitated by the petitioners is that while remanding the case the Collector has been precluded from considering the judgment of the civil Court under which possession of the disputed property was given to the petitioners. They have no objection if the Collector is left free to decide appeal afresh after considering all the contentions of the parties including the contention relating to the judgment of the civil Court. This is acceptable to the respondents.
3. In view of the above agreed position the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Collector to dispose of both the appeals) afresh by applying his mind independently of the direction given to him by the Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. He shall give an opportunity of being heard, to the parties and shall consider all the contentions raised by either of the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.