1. ' In this case Consolidation Scheme was approved by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 28-2- 1977 on the compromise having been entered into by the parties over the land in question. The respondents challenged the scheme before the learned Collector (Consolidation) Gujrat by filing as appeal before him, which was heard and disposed of by him on 22-9-1977. He introduced certain amendments in the Consolidation Scheme. The petitioners filed a revision against the said order before learned Additional Commissioner (Con) Gujranwala. He set aside the order of the learned Collector and remanded the case to him for fresh decision. After remand proceedings, ultimately the revision petition of the petitioners was heard and dismissed by the learned Member
(C) Board of Revenue on 27-7-1987. Review application of the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned Member vide his order dated 6-3-1988. It is contended by the learned counsel that certain material points were raised and argued before learned Member Board of Revenue which were not attended to and no decision thereon was given by him. Learned counsel argues that superior land was taken away from the `Khata' of the petitioners and the said land was allotted to the respondents without any justification. It is argued that consolidation of the holdings of the parties was done on the basis of compromise between them and that this fact of compromise was not considered by the Revisional Court. Learned counsel for contesting respondents opposes the constitutional petition. He says that no injustice has been done to the petitioners. Same view has been expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General. After hearing the parties at some length and perusal of the record, I am of the view that material questions raised and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners were not disposed of as warranted by law, by the learned Member Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order dated 27-7-1987. It was the duty of the learned Revisional Court to have noted down the contentions raised by the learned counsel for their decision on their merits. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the revision petition of the petitioners should have been disposed of by the learned member Board of Revenue more elaborately while deciding the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel says that under law it was not necessary for the revisional forums to have given decision on all points raised in the revision. In paragraph 6 of the revisional order nothing on merits has been said by the learned Member. This approach is certainly not sustainable in law. At this stage learned counsel for the contesting respondents requests that a time limit may be fixed within which the case of the parties should be decided by the learned Revisional Court. This suggestion has been accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Law Officer. In the circumstances, revision filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before learned Member (Con) Board of Revenue. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Member Board of Revenue on 17-2-1991. Office shall send a copy of this order to learned Member, Board of Revenue for its compliance. Learned Member shall dispose of the revision petition of the petitioners after hearing the parties on its merits according to law in the light of this order within next two months, as requested by the learned counsel for the parties. With this observation, this constitutional petition stands disposed of.