MUHAMMAD ILYAS J.-This writ petition has arisen out of a revision petition filed by the petitioners, Kamil Hussain and another, against the respondents, Taj Din and others, challenging legality of an order, made by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore, in respect of certain land. The revision petition was dismissed by the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab the petitioners have, therefore, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court.
2. Foremost argument presented by learned counsel for the petitioners was that the learned Member (Revenue) did not pass a speaking order and, therefore, the matter deserved to be remanded back to him for fresh decision. It was pointed by him that learned Member (Revenue) did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case or the arguments advanced before him and simply reproduced the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and dismissed the revision petition with the observations that he was satisfied with the reasoning of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue).
3. I have gone through the order under challenge and find that, after making introductory remarks, the learned Member (Revenue) reproduced the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue). He, thereafter recorded paragraph 3 which makes the following reading: -
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in considerable detail and have referred to the record of the lower Courts. I am satisfied that the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner is well reasoned, based on facts and does not suffer from any material irregularity. I would, therefore, refuse to interfere in revision, and in consequence reject this revision."
4. It is evident from the above paragraph of the impugned order that detailed arguments were presented before the learned Member (Revenue) but he has not made a mention of any of those arguments nor has he recorded separate and specific findings, thereon. His remarks that the order of the learned Additional (Commissioner(Revenue) was well reasoned, based on facts and did not suffer from any material irregularity, and that he was satisfied with his order is a vague statement which does not warrant a conclusion that the learned Member (Revenue) had applied his own mind to the matter in dispute. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents namely, respondents Nos. 6 to 14 could not say that, in the circumstances indicated above, order passed by the learned Member(Revenue) was a proper order. I, therefore, hold that the learned Member (Revenue) did not dispose of the revision petition with a speaking order and. Thus, his .Order is of no legal effect.
5 Resultantly, I accept this writ petition, set aside the order under challenge and direct that the learned Member (Revenue) shall redecide the revision petition in accordance with law after spelling out the parties arguments and recording his clear findings thereon.
6. Since none of the parlies is at fault, I make no order as to costs.
7. The parties shall appear before the learned Member (Revenue) on 18th June, 1992.
8. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, with the remarks that its copies shall be sent to all the Revenue Officers in the Punjab, including other learned Members of the Board of Revenue, for future guidance.