This is an application for a review of the order of the Board of Revenue., dated 6-5-1985, whereby the revision petition of the present petitioner Abdul Ghafoor was dismissed.
2. The facts briefly are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village concerned was confirmed on 23-4-1980. Against this confirmation the present respondents went in appeal to the ADC(C) against the present petitioner. The respondents' appeal was dismissed by the ADC(C). There was another appeal by third persons against some others (both parties neither present petitioner nor present respondents) which was admitted by the ADC(C) on 23-11-1980. Some of the respondents in this case (Mst. Daulan etc.) filed a revision petition against some other respondents in the same case (Dost Muhammad etc.), which resulted in the remand of the case to ADC(C). On remand this case was decided by the ADC(C) on 20-12-1981. Against this decision by the ADC(C), an appeal was made to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) by Muhammad Siddique etc. Against Mst.
Daulan etc. Neither the appellants nor the respondents in that case were the present parties.
However, during the course of this litigation before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) two applications were made by Muhammad Siddique to implead the present petitioner Abdul Ghafoor and the present respondents Ahmad etc. However, the present petitioner Abdul Ghafoor was never served, and was not present when the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) decided the case on 18-1- 1984. By this decision, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) took 62 kanals of land belonging to the petitioner and gave him another wanda: the land taken from the petitioner was given to the respondents.
3. The petitioner came through a revision petition to the Board of Revenue against the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 18-1-1984, which was decided against him by the Board of Revenue on 6-5-1985 (the impugned order).
4. The case is very simple and strange at the same time. The respondents appealed against the scheme and lost their case against the present petitioner on 23-11-1980. The respondents never knocked at the door of any Court against the decision dated 23-11-1980 by the ADC(C). An independent round of litigation was being carried on between third parties, and when that round reached the level of the Additional Commissioner after three prior decisions by subordinate Courts, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) suddenly chose to implead the present parties and disturbed their wandas inter se. He did not take into consideration the important fact that between the present parties the matter had been decided by the ADC(C) on 23-11-1980, which decision still held the field. Not only that, he did not care to ensure service on the present petitioner and secure his presence; he heard and decided the case in the absence of the petitioner and disturbed his wanda to the extent of 62 kanals. In other words, the respondents were virtually made to win their case against the order of the Collector, dated 23-11-1980 without ever having filed an appeal or revision against it. Accepting the decision of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) against the present petitioner would mount to making a mockery of procedure, as it would mean that matters judicially settled between parties could be taken up in a roundabout way through other people's cases. I'm afraid the Board of Revenue in the impugned order has failed to appreciate the present case, and the result is that the petitioner has been allowed to be condemned unheard, and his duly won case before the Collector on 23-11-1980 has been allowed to be turned into a nullity through other parties' litigation. It would be a great error of law and A procedure if the Board of Revenue's order dated 6-5-1985 were left undisturbed. The present case is one of clear mistake/error on the face of the record and there are sufficient reasons in law and equity to rectify this mistake. The impugned order does not do justice to the merits of the case, as described above, and patently misconstrues the implication of the absence of the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner.
It also fails to give necessary weight to the past and closed litigation between the parties through the order of the Collector, dated 23-11-1980. It is entirely irrelevant whether the changed wandas were just or unjust.
5. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 6-5-1985, as well as the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), dated 18-1-1984 to the extent of the interest of the petitioner.
The result is that as regards the interest of the petitioner the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated B 18-1-1984 shall have no force and shall be regarded as never having been passed. If the respondents want to pursue their case against the petitioner, or want the order of the Collector dated 23-11-1980 overturned, they will have to look for a proper forum and procedure.