The dispute relates to land owned by toe Provincial Government described as "Khushk Biaz" in the Revenue Record situated within Chak a No.24/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari. This land was allotted initially to one Imam Din as alternate land under Grow More Food Scheme which allotment was cancelled on the appeal of the petitioners on the ground that it was not allotabte under a permanent scheme.
2. It was again allotted to Allah Yar predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 11 on 21-1-1974 by Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari. The petitioners again filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan vide order dated 1-4-1975. He found that the disputed land was bed permanent scheme. The allotment of Allah Yar was set- aside.
Feeling aggrieved, Allah Yar filed an appeal in Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 3-1-1976.
Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in this Court (W.P. No. 567/76) which was accepted and the order dated 3-1-1976 was declared to be without lawful authority with the result that the appeal of Allah Yar was deemed to be pending. The learned Member, Board of Revenue was required to hear the parties and give finding on three issues based on the contention of the learned counsel for Allah Yar as under:--
(i) That as a matter of fact the land does not fall in Sukh Bias therefore, the said two notifications were not applicable to this land and order of allotment is perfectly valid;
(ii) That even if the land is found to be situated in Sukh Bias the prohibition against its allotment under permanent scheme had already been withdrawn by the Board of Revenue and notifications dated 20-6-1938 and 17-1-1942 relied upon in the impugned order were no more operative;
(iii) That since the petitioner is entitled to alternate land as allottee under Grow More Food Scheme, therefore, if the land in dispute is found to be not allotable to him, the State is under obligation to allot some other land to the petitioner instead.
The learned Member, Board of Revenue; inter alia, held that (i) from the perusal of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari, the land in dispute was found to be "Nul Nehri" and not the drain of "Sukh Bias".
According to him, the District Collector had also supported this view in his report submitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 15-7-1992; (ii) the, instructions contained in Notifications dated 20-6-1938 and 17-1-1942 relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable to the land in dispute in that it was "Nul Nehri"; (iii) the land had been rightly allotted to Allah Yar as alternate land who was eligible allottee under Grow More Food Scheme.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has misread the relevant record to arrive at the conclusion that the land in dispute was "Nul Nehri" and not bed of river Bias. He has drawn my attention to Annexure ' A' (coy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1988-89) where in column No.4 the land in question is mentioned as "Khushk Bias" and its classification is given vide column 6 as 'Nul Chahi". He has also heavily relied on copy of Khasra Girdawari for Kharif-1991 to Kharif-1992 (Annexure 'B') which also indicates that the land in -dispute is "Nul Chahi".
4. It is submitted that these 'documents were brought to the notice of learned Member, Board of Revenue during the course of arguments but he failed to peruse the same and thus erroneously found that the disputed land was not "Khushk Bias" and its classification and "Nul Nehri".
5. Learned counsel for contesting respondents Nos.2 to 11 has vehemently opposed this writ petition.
According to him, the question as to whether the disputed land was the bed of "Khushk Bias" or not is essentially one of fact and the finding recorded by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on this question cannot be interfered with by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199.
It is true that ordinarily findings recorded by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction on question of fact are immune from scrutiny in writ jurisdiction. However, this is not an absolute rule. In case it is found that the relevant material has either been misread or omitted from consideration and in the process and erroneous finding has been given, the same is liable to be struck down by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. A perusal of the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue shows that he has not looked into the copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1988-89. That is not all. The entries in Khasra Girdawari have been prima face misread while holding that the land in dispute was "Nul Nehri."
7. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained, the same being outcome of non-reading/misreading of material evidence. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The not result is that the appeal filed by the deceased Allah Yar shall be deemed to be pending, to be decided afresh by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties and going through the entire relevant record. Since the matter before the learned Member, Board of Revenue is quite old (ROR No, 60/74/75), it is directed that the matter shall be finally decided within a period of four months. No costs.