1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought; against the acceptance by the High Court of a Constitutional/Writ Petition filed by the respondents side in a consolidation matter.
2. ' It is stated by the learned counsel that for the village concerned a consolidation scheme was confirmed in 1985 under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner was not satisfied with the result. He approached the then Consolidation Minister who ordered re-opening of the case for purpose of fresh consolidation. The case was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for implementation of the orders of the Minister. At the district level perhaps some difficulty was felt in implementing directly an order of a Minister in the consolidation proceedings which were to be conducted by the statutory functionaries and the Minister did not figure anywhere in the hierarchy of those functionaries. Accordingly, reference was made to the Board of Revenue and a learned Member thereof by an order dated 26-4-1987 ordered the re-opening of the case and fresh proceedings for consolidation. This order was challenged by the respondents' side in the High Court in its Writ jurisdiction. Their Writ petition having been allowed the order of the Minister was set aside and consequently that of Board of Revenue and other orders passed in pursuance thereof having been set aside the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
3. ' The learned Judge in the High Court made the following observations with regard to the validity of the orders/directions issued by the Minister:-- "Under the Law Minister for Consolidation has no jurisdiction or authority to pass any order in respect of consolidation scheme already confirmed under the law against which all objections and judicial proceedings in the nature of appeals and revisions had already been exhausted and disposed of The impugned order of Minister for Consolidation was, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Law is firmly settled that if the basic order is without lawful authority, whole series of such orders together with superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them fall to the ground. Reference may be made to judgments reported as Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104 and Mst. Fakhra Malik v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab Local Government and Rural Development Department and 2 others PLD 1982 Lahore
606. In this view of the matter merely because in pursuance to the impugned void order the village has been re-consolidated, is no ground to maintain the said order."
4. ' In addition to the aforestated reasons in the impugned judgment of the High Court we are also of the view that another argument advanced before the High Court from the respondents' side, was also valid; namely, that "Minister for Consolidation had no authority to interfere with the confirmed consolidation scheme as under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the authorities who could act were the Collector, Commissioner and Board of Revenue." The statutory functionaries alone could have interfered with the orders chellenged before them. The Minister not being such a functionary had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter in any manner whatsoever. His action thus for this additional ground was also void ab initio and could not at all be acted upon.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner faced with the aforestated formidable position, argued that in addition to the order passed by the Minister in this case the Board of Revenue had also passed independent order; therefore, the said order would cure the defects pointed out above. We do not agree with him. The order of the Minister as already been explained, was coram non judice. It could not at all be cured by any functionary even if he was acting under the law in purported exercise of his own jurisdiction. Because obviously this exercise also got tainted by the original orders passed by the Minister.
6. ' In this case there is an additional feature; namely, that the learned Member, Board of Revenue did not act according to his own independent judgment and this is further shown in the order of the Member of the Board of Revenue relied upon by the learned counsel. It is clearly stated therein that "under the orders of the Minister of Consolidation Punjab, the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue Punjab has been pleased to allow re-consolidation in village Kotli Bhagu, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot". The aforegoing supposition is strengthened by further direction issued by the Board of Revenue namely, that the District Authorities were required "to comply with the above orders and submit a report for information of the Minister for Consolidation, Punjab". This order was passed in 1987. As shown above, not only this but subsequent orders passed in this case for implementation of the Order of the Board of Revenue, whether by saying so or otherwise, would all be treated as void and nullity.
7. ' In the light of the foreging discussion the impugned judgment of the High Court being unexceptionable there is no justification for grant of leave to appeal. The same is refused. However, all these orders shall not bar the lawful proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by the Officers functioning thereunder and exercising their own powers. With these observations this petition is dismissed.