The petitioner has through this revision petition challenged the order dated 4-8-1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore, which was passed in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction.
2. This revision petition was filed with a delay of 1 year 25 days. Keeping in view this fact and other submissions of the petitioner's counsel made during the course of preliminary hearing, pre- admission notice was issued to the respondents.
3. Arguments of the parties were heard at length. The record of the lower Court was also called and examined. The background of this case is that on 25-1--1986 Collector (Cons.) Lahore submitted a report to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) in order to rectify, in exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the situation created by allocating to some right-holders- land of the Central Government/Punjab University and University having been allocated land outside its prescribed limits. This report was received in the Office of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) on 8-2-1986. After hearing the parties and examining the case he passed the impugned order.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the following points in his favour:- (a)the impugned order was passed ex parte meaning thereby that the petitioner was condemned unheard. The authorised representative of the petitioner was not associated with the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.);
(b) the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order; and
(c) the impugned order was unjust.
5. The representative of respondent No.2, University of the Punjab found no defect in the impugned order.
6. The contention of the counsel for Respondent No.3 is that:-
(i) the revision petition is time-barred and that the petitioner had fully participated m the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.);
(ii) the impugned order was passed by the competent authority. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity; and
(iii) the impugned order is based on consented proposals of the relevant parties and is just and fair.
7. Let us now examine the case in the light of the respective submissions of the parties. At the time of announcement of the impugned order on 4-8-1986 among others, the representative of the petitioner Society, namely Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer was present. The petitioner applied for the copy of the order on 17-9-1986. Certified copy was delivered to the petitioner on 16-10-1986. This revision petition was filed on '9-12-1987, after a delay of 1 year 25 days. Obviously it is a time-barred petition. In the application for condonation of delay, submitted in this Court, the main plea of the petitioner is that the proceedings were ex parte and the petitioner was condemned unheard. The record of the lower Court has been examined. On 24-2-1986, Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer and Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Administrative Officer of the petitioner Society were present. In their presence Patwari concerned was directed that he should carry out spot inspection in the presence of the parties and submit report by the next date i.e. 17-3-1986. On 17-3-1986 Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer was present among others. The Patwari (Cons.) explained that he had partly completed the job and requested for more time to complete it. The case was adjourned to 30-3- 1986. On the said date Muhammad Sharif Butt, Administrative Officer and Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer were present on behalf of the petitioner Society. On a plea raised by the representatives of the Society, Patwari concerned was directed that he should carry out measurements at the spot in the presence of the parties and send up such proposals as were acceptable to the parties. Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer was present on behalf of the Society on subsequent dates namely 20-4-1986, 4-5-1986, 25-5-1986 and 15-6-1986. On 29-6-1986 the next date of hearing, Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer was present along with Malik Muhammad Nawaz Advocate, counsel for the petitioner Society. The proposals had been completed by that time and the counsel for the petitioner Society stated that he had not yet examined the proposals and requested for adjournment. The case was adjourned to 6-7-1986 and thereafter to 13-7-1986 on which date although the counsel of the petitioner was present but the Presiding Officer had gone to Islamabad and the case was adjourned to 20-7-1986 when again the counsel for the petitioner Society was also present before the Court. The case was thereafter adjourned to 27-7-1986 and then to 4-8-1986 on which date the case was finally decided. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer, Canal View Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Was present on behalf of the Society and after hearing the parties the impugned order was passed. The perusal of the record will reveal that the petitioner Society remained fully associated with the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) from the beginning till the end. While Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer continued to attend the Court regularly, the counsel of the petitioner Society and its Administrative Officer had also been attending the proceedings of the Court on behalf of the Society on various dates. The argument that the Land Officer was not the authorised representative of the Society is of no avail in this case. The Administrative Officer as well as the counsel of the Society had also appeared during the hearing. If the Land Officer was not their authorised representative they should have stopped him from attending the Court or taking part in the proceedings. On the contrary even the Administrative Officer and the counsel of the petitioner Society had also been bringing along the Land Officer Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel and having his presence marked during the proceedings of the case. No oral or written request was made to the Additional Commissioner that Ch. Muhammad Ismaeel, Land Officer should not be considered their representative. In the circumstances of this case it is clear that the Society got itself represented through Muhammad Ismaeel Land Officer. Neither the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) ordered any ex parte proceedings against the A petitioner nor any ex parte proceedings were held against the petitioner Society. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the petitioner Society was condemned unheard. The discussion in this paragraph has brought out that the revision petition was badly time-barred and that the petitioner had fully participated in the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) through its Officers counsel cars as well as its 8.The argument that the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had no power to decide this case in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction will be examined keeping in view the provisions of the law on the subject. It is laid down in subsection (2) of section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 that a Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under this Ordinance pending before or disposed of by any Revenue c.r Consolidation Officer under his control. Under subsection (3) it has been prescribed that if in any case in which; a Collector has called for the record under Section (2), he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case for the orders of the Commissioner. It is further laid down in subsection (4) that the Board of Revenue may in any case called for under subsection (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under subsection (3) pass such order as it or he thinks fit. In the present case the report was made by Collector (Cons.). The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) g carried out hearing of the case in the presence of the relevant parties and decidedthe matter. No time limit has been spelled out for the exercise of these powers by the Commissioner in the provisions of law rendered to above. Furthermore the Misal Haqiyat of Maura Niaz Baig has neither been completed nor consigned so far by the Consolidation.
Authorities. This case was processed strictly in accordance with the provisions of law as mentioned above. The plea of the petitioner that Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had no jurisdiction to decide this matter is, therefore, misconceived.
9. It was pointed out by the counsel for Respondent No.3 that the impugned order was based on consented proposals. Respondent No.2 also does not challenge this position. It is only the petitioner Society which feels aggrieved. After due deliberations, the Land Officer of the Society had given a written consent on 4-8-1986 to the proposal on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.
The consent was given in the following words recorded on the proposal relating to the petitioner: The fact that the petitioner was in possession of a certified copy of the impugned order on 16-10- 1986 and did not agitate against the said order for a long time further lends support that at the time of the decision of the case the petitioner had no two opinions and that it was satisfied with the consented order. No injustice appears to have been done to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner got what it wanted.
10. For the reasons given above I am convinced that the impugned order was passed by a competent authority, that it was based on well considered proposals, consented to by the parties including the petitioner and that the present revision petition was hopelessly time- barred. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.