HAFEEZULLA1I ISHAQ, MEMBER.--This review petition is directed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, against the order dated 28.2.1989 of the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Lahore, whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of village Mangat, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat, was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 on 30.4.1976 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was partly annulled by the Board of Revenue to the extent of the Niaeen belt. Thereafter, the Collector (Consolidation) under section 10(4) of the Ordinance, ibid, confirmed the consolidation scheme of the village. The parties feeling aggrieved started litigation and finally the respondents came up in revision petition in the Board of Revenue.
The Member (Judicial) vide his order dated 13.11.1986 remanded the case to the-Collector (Consolidation). During the pendency of the remand order, the respondents filed an application in the court of the Collector (Consolidation) for making the petitioners as a party who turned down the same on 6.7.1987. He held in his order that after remanding the case from the court of the learned member (Cons), neither new right holders could be impleaded as a party nor new issues could be framed. If needed, impleading of new right holders can be considered at the time of the decision of the case but upto the compliance with the order of the learned Member (Judicial) only.
On 8.9.1988 the respondents put in an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation) for status quo which was rejected on 17.9.1988 holding that earlier the application of the respondents had also been rejected for impleading the petitioners as a party. As-such it was incumbent upon the respondents to challenge the order of the Collector dated 6.7.1987 in the higher forum but since the respondents did no do so, therefore, the present application was not tenable. The respondents went in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) who vide his order dated 9.10.1988 accepted it and ordered for impleading the respondents as a party.
3. The petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Member (Cons) who vide his impugned order rejected it. He held in his order that the Consolidation courts were fully competent to allow impleading of concerned persons as party in order to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the matter under consideration. Hence this review petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were never impleaded as a party in the litigation following confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme in 1976 and that the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 13.11.1986, had attained finality in which the petitioners were not a party; and that he learned Member, Board of Revenue, in his remand order dated 13.11.1986, had not permitted impleading of more rightholders. Therefore, the impugned order was in contradiction of the order dated 13.11.1986 and thus liable to be reviewed.
5. In reply thereto, the learned counsel for the respondents has maintained that there was no ground for review of the impugned order and the petitioners had merely challenged an inter- locutory order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the impugned and other relevant orders. The last and operative paragraph of the order of Malik Zawar Hussain, Member, Board of Revenue, dated 13.11.1986, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed total reliance, reads as follows:-- "In result, I accept the remaining three revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders and remand the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation), Gujrat for a fresh decision in the light of the observation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this order after hearing all the parties concerned".
7. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, had used the term after hearing all the parties concerned' which has a very broad scope and in no way restricts the lower courts to hear only the parties present before him, if so, he could have merely said 'after hearing the parties' which would have meant parties before him. The learned Member must have been cognizant of the fact that when a Consolidation Scheme is touched, various rightholders would be affected even by making a small amendment and therefore it was obligatory for the authorities dealing with such a case to hear all the concerned parties. My learned predecessor, Syed Sarfraz Hussain, also took a similar view in his impugned order wherein he observed, "I am of the firm opinion that consolidation courts are fully competent to allow impleading of concerned persons as party in order to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the matter under consideration." I therefore do not see any inconsistency or contradiction between the two orders which would necessitate a review. The case is still open before the Collector (Consolidation) and the parties can agitate their rights/points of view before him.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the respondents had not applied to the Collector (Consolidation), Gujrat, for impleading the petitioners as parties. The file of the court below was therefore requisitioned and perused and it is evident that Bad etc., had applied on 6.7.1987 for impleading Ghulam Qadir, Ali, Haider, sons of Khushi, Mohammad Hussain son of Sardara, Ghulam Qadir son of Bahawal, Nazra son of Nawab, Manzoor Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, sons of Nizam Din and Boota son of Karam Din, all residents of village Mangat, as parties in the case, and their application was rejected the same day Another application moved on 19.12.1987 for impleading heirs of Sultan son of Raja was dismissed on 17.9.1988 alongwith vacation of stay order against Ghulam Qadir etc., by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mandi Bahauddin, resulting in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation).
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that this petition does not meet the stringent conditions laid down in section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, for review of the impugned order and is accordingly dismissed.