MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUMJ- The Consolidation Scheme of village Fatowal Sulehrian was confirmed by Consolidation Officer, Sialkot on 28.9.1986 under Section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance 1960. It appears that out of 771 land owners only six of them filed appeals before the Collector Consolidation Sialkot which are still pending. However on 21st February, 1988 an application was filed by respondent No.1 (Ghulam Rasool) before the Minister Consolidalior for setting-aside of the whole scheme. The Minister after calling for the report from the Additional Commissioner directed that the Addl. Commissioner should review the scheme. In pursuance to this order of the Minister the Additional Commissioner Consolidation on 19th September, 1989 set aside the scheme purportedly under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance I960. The petitioner challenged this order of the Additionl Commissioner by filing a revision which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 17.4.1 WO. They have now approached this Court by filing this constitutional petition.
2. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, learned counsel for the petitioner submiled that the Minister for Consolidation has no authority in law to interfere with the consolidation scheme which had been sanctioned by the Consolidation officer on 29th September, 1986 and against which appeals have been filed by some of-the land owners which are still pending. According to the learned counsel the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner has been passed in pursuance to the order passed by the Minister and it is liable to be struck down. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Ahmad Khan v. Member (Consolidations) Board of Revenue (P.L.D. 1990 S.C., 1070) has held that the Minister for Consolidation has no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the scheme for consolidation sanctioned by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. It has been further held that any proceedings taken in pursuance to any order passed by the Minister, are wholly void and unsustainable. This authority of the Supreme Court is applicable with full force to the present case and the impugned orders are therefore, not sustainable.
For the reasons aforesaid this petition is accepted with costs and the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.