MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.- The dispute in this case pertains to the allotment of State land situate in Chak No.35/GD, Tehsil and District Okara under horse breeding scheme. The tenancy in respect of the afore-said land had faller vacant on the death of the original lessee. Applications were invited from eligible persons for its allotmcnt. The District Collector, vide his order dated 24.9.1980 allotted the land in dispute to Muhammad Yar petitioner. On appeal the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore Division, Lahore vide his order dated 11.1.1983 allotted the land in dispute to Muhammad Sharif respondent. Muhammad Yar petitioner challenged that order in revision. The Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue vide his order dated 8.5.1983 restored the order of the District Collector and allotted the land in favour of the petitioner. The order of the Additional Commissioner was also challenged by Fazal Ahmad and Muhammad Tufail through separate revision petitions.
The Member Board of Revenue seized of the matter vide his order dated 7.7.1984 maintained the order under revision whereby Muhammad Sharif respondent was held entitled to the allotment of land in dispute. The afore-said orders being contradictory were set aside by this Court vide order dated 18.3.1984 passed in Writ Petition Nos.2486 and 4483 of 1983. The case was remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue for fresh decision.
It is significant to point out that during the proceedings in remand before Mr. S.M. Nasim, the learned Member, Board of Revenue Muhammad Tufail rival candidate moved application seeking transfer of the case to some other Member Board of Revenue. No objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner or lis rival candidate Muhammad Sharif who were present in person before him. With he consent of the contesting parties, the case was transferred to the member(Judicial) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore for decision. He heard learned counsel for the parties and vide order dated 12.6.1985 upheld the findings of the Additional Commissioner holding Muhammad Sharif Respondent entitled to the allotment of the land in dispute. This order gave rise to three writ petitions. The one filed by Muhammad Yar (W.P.No.2881/85) was dismissed on 6.7.1985 whereby this Tourt declined to interfere in the orders of the revenue authorities holding Muhammad Sharif better qualified that the petitioner particularly when the land in dispute was to be allotted as a grant under horse breeding scheme to a suitable person.
The second petition (W.P.No.3723/85) was dismissed on 16.10.1985 by his lrdship Mr. Justice Saad Saood Jan (as he then was) holding as under:- The question before the revenue authorities was who should be allocated the Ghoripaf square.
They considered the claims of the petitioner and other respondents and decided to give the square to respondent No.4. Since it was a matter of discretion with them, I do not think,it is a fit case for interference by this Court. Dismissed."
The third petition (W.P.No.4237/85) filed by Fazal Muhammad was also dismissed by MrJustice Fazl-i-Mahmood (as he then was) on 25.1.1986 holding as follows:- "The learned Member indeed had jurisdiction over the subject-matter and also over the parties to the dispute. The petitioner has not been able to show that the impugned order was liable to be declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The matter involved selection of a suitable person for the horse breeding grant on a variety of considerations. The question of eligibility of respondent No.2 has been answered in his favour by the learned Member (Judicial)
Board of Revenue. The impugned orders do not as such suffer from a jurisdictional error.
The net result of above discussion is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine."
It appears that Fazal Muhammad did not agitate the matter any further. Muhammad Yar petitioner, however, challenged the order of this Court through C.A.No.172/86 before the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed on 3.3.1986 and the case was remanded to this Court for fresh decision. The relevant portion of the Supreme Court order reads: - "By CPLA No.920/1985 orders of the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) are challenged and inter alias it is contended that the to authorities have wrongly held that the Collector is bound to accept the recommendations submitted by the District Remount Officer, that Mr. S.M.Naseem, Member, Board of Revenue properly adjudicated upon this point in his order and respondent No.2 Malik Zawar Hussain Member (Judidcial) has not given any reason that in what circumstances the decision of the Learned Member (Colonies) was not correct, that the learned Member (Judidcial) of the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to decide the question involved, and that these aspects of the case have not been gone into by the learned High Court Judge while dismissing the writ petition, and thus erred in law.
2. Learned counsel also filed copy of affidavit submitted by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Chohan, Advocate who had appeared in the High Court and had raised the question whether Malik Zawar Hussain, Member (Judicial)had the lawful authority to decide the case. He also filed copy of the order of the learned Member (Colonies).
3. On examining the question we find that the Board, under the relevant provision of law applicable, has Members to conduct the business in different fields vide sub-section (1) of section 6 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which reads as follows:-
6. Conduct of Business(1) Subject to the approval of the Government, the Board may distribute its business amongst the Members, and may, by rules regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it.
As such the question of jurisdiction does arise in this case. Notices were already issued to the respondents. We convert the petition into appeal, allow it and remand the case to the High Court for decision afresh on the point raised by the learned counsel."
Muhammad Tufail also called in question the validity of order dated 16.10.1985 passed by this Court whereby his Writ Petition No.3723 of 1985 was dismissed through C.P.S.L.A.No.513 of 1986, wherein the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal vide order dated 21.8.1989 which reads:- "This leave to appeal petition relates to the allotment of State land on conditions regarding Horse Breeding Scheme under the Colonization of Government Lands Act.
According to learned counsel the original lessee had died. The land was resumed and treating it as a new case of allotment (and not that of inheritance), fresh applicants were considered.
Muhammad Sharif respondent No.5 succeeded. The petitioner and another candidate, namely Muhammad Yar were unsuccessful. He has further stated that like the petitioner Muhammad Yar having failed, the Supreme Court ultimately granted him relief and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh decision. He has also informed that the matter is still pending in the High Court.
In view of what has been stated above the delay in filing this petition is condoned. It is converted into appeal and ordered to be fixed in the next week if the Bench is available at Lahore. There shall be no security."
2. Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan, learned counsel for petitioner contended that Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member (Colonies) had no jurisdiction to transfer the revision petition to Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue on 1.1.1985 for disposal. In support of his contention he referred to Article 175(2) of the Constitution which reads:- "No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law."
He argued that under section 6(1) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, subject to the approval of the Government, the Board may distribute its business amongst its Members, and may, by rules, regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it, Mr. S.M. Nasim obtained no prior approval from the Government before transferring the revision petition to the Member (Judicial)
Board of Revenue. The transferee Member, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision petition entrusted to him for want of a valid order. In his estimation, the order passed by the Member, (Judicial) was coram non-jiudice. He also controverted the factum recorded in the order dated 1.1.1985 by Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member, Board of Revenue that Muhammad Yar petitioner and other rival candidates raised no objection for transfer of the revision petition to the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue. He however, did not file a counter affidavit in support of his submission in this regard. It was also pointed out that Mr. S.M. Nasim was acting at the relevant the as Member (Colonies) and not even a Senior Member to entrust the revision petition for disposal to Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue.
Mr. Talib Haider Rizvi, Advocate, learned counsel for Muhammad Sharif Respondent, on the contrary contended that there is no cavil with the proposition that a Court can competently decide a matter if vested with jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or under any other law. He maintained that the Member (Judicial) Board of revenue to whom the case was entrusted for decision was clothed with jurisdiction to decide the same. He argued that according to section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 the 'Board' means, the Board of Revenue established under the Act" and section 6(2) stipulates that an order passed by a Member, shall be deemed to be the order of the Board. The Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue was appointed as Member, Board of Revenue like all other Members for disposing of cases of various categories. He referred to the provisions of sections 6(1) and 4(2) of the aforementioned Act to demonstrate that the approval of the Government was not necessary in matters where the Board exercises appellate and revisional jurisdiction. The transfer of a revision petition from one Member to another, therefore, required no prior approval of the Government. Mr. S.M. Nasim at the relevant the was Senior Member, Board of Revenue. He entrusted the case to another Member for disposal at the instance of the parties. The petitioner raised no objection before Mr. S.M. Nasim or before the transferee Member. He even did not mention in the writ petition that the Member (Judicial) had no jurisdiction to decide the revision petition but raised the point, for the first the before the Supreme Court. He was therefore, estopped to question the competency of the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue to decide the dispute after the decision had gone against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the order impugned in this petition has already been maintained by to other Hon'ble Judges of this Court by dismissing the writ petitions filed by the rival candidates. It will not, therefore, be appropriate to have a contrary view on a mere technicality which does not exist in reality.
4. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Rana, Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, appeared with the record and testified that Mr. S.M. Nasim, the learned Member, Board of Revenue was a Senior Member, Board of Revenue when he entrusted the revision petition to the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue. He also pointed out that the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue exercises all powers of Member, Board of Revenue and the order passed by him does not suffer for lack of jurisdiction. He also affirmed that revision petition was transferred on an application moved by Muhammad Tufail which was not opposed by the petitioner and other candidates present on that date.
5. Mr. Talib Hussain, Advocate appeared on behalf of Mian Saeed-ur- Rahman Farrukh, Advocate for Muhammad Tufail who had moved an application for impleading him as one of the parties to this case. He stated that he challenged the order of this Court dismissing his writ petition wherein leave has been granted by the Supreme Court. He, therefore, opted to argue the case before the Supreme Court.
6. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant- documents on the file. It is established on record that the petitioner was present on 1.1.1985 before Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member, Board of Revenue when on the application filed by Muhammad Tufail his rival candidate seeking transfer of the revision petition to some other Member, Board of Revenue, he raised no objection which is so recorded in the afore-said order.
Similarly he raised no objection before the transferee Member and argued his case until the case was decided against him. He did not mention nor questioned the jurisdiction of the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue to adjudicate upon the revision petition even in the grounds of the writ petition. The provisions as contained in sections 2, 4 and 6 relevant to the extent are reproduced hereunder:- "2.(i)"Board" means the Board of Revenue established under this Act.
(ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(iii) "Member" means a member of the Board of Revenue established under this Act."
4. (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) The Board shall be subject to the control of the Government, and in all matters, other than those in which the Board exercises appellate and revisional jurisdiction, the Government shall have power to issue such directions to the Board as may be considered necessary or expedient and the Board shall carry out those directions, (underlining is mine).
6. (1) Subject to the approval of the government, the board may distribute its business amongst its Members and may, by rules, regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it.
(2) Any order made or a decree passed by a Member shall be deemed to be the order of the Board."
The aforesaid provisions of law read together clearly show that all matters where the Board exercises revisional or appellate jurisdiction the approval of the Government in transacting its business is not necessary. The transfer of a revision petition by a Senior Member, Board of Revenue to another Member being judicial exercise of jurisdiction required no prior approval of the Government. The Member,(Judicial) Board of Revenue who had been appointed as Member, Board of Revenue was, therefore, competent to decide the revision petition. In my opinion neither the order of transfer nor the disposal of the revision petition by Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue suffered for lack of jurisdiction. Even otherwise it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to plead lack of jurisdiction in the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue to adjudicate the revision petition when no such objection was raised at the the the same was entrusted to him nor when it was heard and decided. The discretion cannot be exercised in writ jurisdiction in favour of a person who does not approach the Court bonafidely and with clean hands.
The impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue whereby the order of the Additional Commissioner was maintained in holding Muhammad Sharif entitled to the allotment of the tenancy on the basis of possessing better right than other candidates merits no inter-ference in writ jurisdiction.
7. For the reasons highlighted above I find no merit in this petition and dismiss it with costs.