This is a fourth round of litigation and the present Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 30-9-1987 of the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Lahore remanding the case to Collector, Jaranwala for implementation of the orders passed in W.P. No. 227-R of 1971 decided on 4-2-1980 and then deciding the case in accordance with order dated 6-1-1982 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation).
2. The case has a chequered history and it is not necessary to reproduce all the facts in this petition. Briefly stated, the respondents were allotted land including disputed Killa No. 25 of Square No. 35 measuring, 8 Kanals 18 Marlas situate in Chak No. 591, Tehsil Jaranwala and this was cancelled at the instance of one Booba and finally the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 227-R of 1971 and the same was accepted by this Court on 4-2-1980 holding that "the initial order of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners (now respondents) dated 16-2-1956 had attained finality." Further holding in para 8 that "the upshot of the above discussion is that the order of allotment of the disputed land made in favour of the petitioners (respondents) on 16-2-1956 holds good and all subsequent orders passed by the Settlement Authorities are declared to be of no legal consequence." The aforementioned order passed by this Court on 4-2-1980 was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.S.LA. No. 170 of 1980 where Booba, represented by his legal heirs, was a party.
3. After the decision of the case, as aforesaid, Mutations Nos. 1433 and 1435 were entered on 14-4- 1980, in favour of the respondents and these were finally rejected by order dated 6-1-1982 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division and while doing so the following observations were made:-- "However, it is ordered to ADC (C)/Collector (Consolidation), Jhang/Faisalabad that he should make enquiry regarding the Wandas of the parties afresh and see that under what circumstances the appellants have been given land measuring 8 Kanals in lieu of their previous two Kanals during consolidation operation. A case should be prepared under section 13 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and sent to this Court with proposal for disposal."
It may be stated that the aforementioned order dated 6-1-1982 was passed at the instance of petitioner No. 1 Ghulam Ahmad who was claiming the exchange of his Khasra number 15/1 measuring 2 Kanals 4 Marlas in Square No. 38 with disputed Killa No. 25 of Square No. 35 with Booba who, as stated above, lost the case up to the Supreme Court. This exchange appears to have taken place during consolidation proceedings in 1969.
4. The respondents did not assail order dated 6-1-1982 but filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner for the implementation of the order of this Court dated 4-2- 1980 deciding the issue of allotment in their favour and this was allowed by order dated 25-10-1983 of Collector, Gujranwala. An appeal was filed by the petitioner/petitioners which was accepted on 21-6-1984 mainly on the ground stated as hereunder:--- "So I accept the appeal, set aside the order- of the A.C./Collector, Jaranwala dated 23-10-1983 in view of the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) dated 6-1-1982. The respondents should first get the order dated 6-1-1982 set aside and seek clear orders of the implementation of the High Court from a proper forum competent to set aside or review the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 6-1-1982."
5. Both the orders dated 6-1-1982 and 21-6-1984 of the Additional Commissioner were assailed by the respondents before the Member, Board of Revenue who by his order dated 30-9-1987 directed firstly to implement the order of this Court and thereafter the rights of the parties would be determined in accordance with order dated 6-1-1982 aforementioned.
6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who has raised many-fold arguments including the one that the Member, Board of Revenue possesses no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter has already been decided up to the Supreme Court and the present writ petition has been filed in bad faith.
7. 1 find that there are two directions in the impugned order dated ~30-9-1987 directing that the order of this Court be implemented and thereafter the rights of the parties be decided in accordance with order dated 6-1-1982 of the Additional Commissioner. As to the first direction the issue of, allotment was finalised by this Court on 2-4-1980 and this order was affirmed in C.P.S.LA.
No. 170/80. This allotment issue having been finally decided it was the duty of the lower Revenue/Settlement Authorities to implement it and the learned Member, Board of Revenue was fully justified in issuing the direction.
As to the second direction in the impugned order dated 30-9-1987 the same is reproduced as hereunder:-- "After determining the rights of the petitioner the case should be sent to Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) concerned who should examine the case in the light of the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 6-1-1982. The requisite particular Khasra number be restored to the petitioner according to law."
8. Both the aforementioned directions cannot be said to be in any manner suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error and the impugned order is strictly in accordance with decision of this Court affirmed as aforesaid. It may be stated that the cancellation of mutations in the order dated 6-1-1982 was wholly illegal and without lawful authority and these were, in the first instance rightly entered in the name of the respondents.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.