' AFTAB HUSSAIN, J.-This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.
333. And 676 of 1976 since the jurisdiction of Mr. S. M. Nasim, Additional Chief Land Commissioner to exercise powers of Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, have been challenged in both the cases.
2. The facts in Writ Petition No, 333 of 1976 are that the disputed area in that case was allotted to Muhammad Sharif petitioner on the 20th August 1970, under the Pedigree Live Stock Greeding Scheme, this area was resumed on the 5th July 1972. The petitioner's appeal against that order was rejected. His revision petition was accepted by the Revenue Board on the ground that it was necessary to determine whether the possession of the land was regularly delivered to the petitioner. The Collector having found this against the petitioner again passed an order of resumption against which his appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the revision before the Board of Revenue failed. The revision petition before the Board of Revenue was disposed of by Mr. S. M. Nasim, Additional Land Commissioner on the 27th October 1975. It was held in a Single Bench case in Ejaz Ahmad v. Board of Revenue, Punjab (1) that Mr. S. M. Nasim was never appointed as Member, Board of Revenue. A different view was taken in Review Application No, 24 of 1976 in Writ Petition No, 236 of 1976 by another Bench. This case was, therefore, referred to the Division Bench.
3. The petitioner in the other Writ Petition (W. P. 676 of 1976) was an allottee of State Land under the Grow More Food Scheme. The allotment was made during the year 1956. In 1961 this allotment was cancelled since the petitioner was not found entitled to grant of proprietary rights in view of the decision of the Government that no such rights could be given in land situated within the five miles prohibited belt. Subsequently, the limits of this belt were reduced to two miles. The Government, therefore, decided to restore the allottees whose allotments were similarly cancelled or to give them alternative land. The petitioner submitted an application for restoration of his allotment but the same was dismissed by the Collector on the 31st January 1974. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on the 6th June 1974. Dissatisfied with this order the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of the Revenue which was dismissed by Mr. S. M.
Nasim on the 13th January 1975. A review petition was dismissed by Mr. S. M. Nasim on the 10th October 1975. The petitioner has now challenged all the orders mentioned above.
' During the arguments of Writ Petition No, 676 of 1976, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction for Mr. S. M. Nasim. He relied upon the decision in the case of Ejaz Ahmed. In view of the difference of the opinion in the case of Ejaz Ahmed and in Review Application No, 24 of 1976 in Writ Petition No, 236 of 1976 this case was also ordered to be put up before the Division Bench.
4. As stated above the view taken in the case of Ejaz Ahmed is that Mr. S. M. Nasim was not a Member, Board of Revenue and the proceedings before him were coram non judice. It was, however, held in Review Application No, 24 of 1976 that by Notification issued on the 18th October 1973, the Governor of Punjab had appointed Mr. S. M. Nasim as Member Board of Revenue, Punjab for disposal of Colony judicial cases and there was nothing wrong with such an appointment. The decision of this question turns upon the interpretation of the notification referred to above and the provisions of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. This matter
(1) P L 1) 1976 Wt. 563 ' has been dealt with in detail in the case of Ejaz Ahmed where the notification has been reproduced as follows:- "NOTIFICATION The 18th October 1973.
' No, CI-II-1973, Mr. S. M. Nasim, Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, shall exercise the powers of Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, for the disposal of Colony Judicial cases, in addition to his own duties, till futher orders. By order of the Governor of Punjab S. Afzal Agha."
It is clear from this notification that Mr. S. M. Nasim was not appointed as a Member, Board of Revenue, only some powers exercisable by the Board of Revenue were conferred upon him and he was authorised to exercise the jurisdiction of Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, for disposal of Colony Judicial cases. Whether such power can be conferred upon a person without a formal appointment as Member, Board of Revenue can be decided only with reference to the provisions of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act.
5. This point was not considered in Review Application No, 24 of 1976. In the case of Ejaz Ahmad, the learned Single Judge, after referring to sections 3, 4, 6 and 7, found that a person could not be a Member, Board of Revenue unless he was appointed as such.
6. Section 3 of the Board of Revenue Act, provides that there shall be a Board of Revenue for West Pakistan which shall consist of such Members as may be appointed by the Government from time to time. The terms "Board" and "Member" are defined in section 2. "Board" means the Board of Revenue established under this Act, while "Member" means a member of the said Board of Revenue. In order that a Board of Revenue may be constituted the Governor must appoint the members thereof (section 3). By section 4 the Board has been vested with the powers of general superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers and Courts and all such Officers and Courts while exercising their functions are subordinate to the Board. The Board itself is subject to the control of the Government and is bound to carry out the directions of the Government except in matters in which it exercises appellate and revisional jurisdiction. Section 5 declares that the Board shall be controlling authority in all matters connected with the administration of the land, collection of land revenue, preparation of land records and other matters relating thereto and shall be the highest Court of appeal and revision in revenue cases in the Province. Under section 6 the Board itself has the power to distribute its business amongst its Members and to regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it although the discharge of this function is subject to the approval of the Government. It is further provided in subsection (2) of that section that any order made or a decree passed by a member shall be deemed to be the order or decree of the Board. Subsection (3) provides guidance for cases in which members of the Board are required by the above Rules to dispose of a case collectively and there is a difference of opinion amongst them as to the decision to be given on any point. It is provided that the decision will be according to the opinion of the majority and in case the members are equally divided the members shall state the point on which they differ and the case can then be heard on that point collectively by those members who heard it and another member and in case there is no such member, by an additional member to be appointed by the Government for the purpose of the case; the matter shall thereafter be decided by a majority. Section 7 confers finality upon the decree or order passed by a member either on appeal or revision subject to the provisions of subsection (2) and (3). Subsection (2) makes provisions for a further revision to the Full Board (which means two or three members as may be determined by the Rules). Subsection (3) on the other hand deals with only the period of limitation for revision. The class of cases in which a revision before a Full Board is competent can be specified by the Rules to be framed under the Rule-making power conferred upon the Board by section 9.
7. From the scheme of the Act it in clear that the Board can be constituted by appointment of members. The Board so constituted is vested with the general superintendence and control over all revenue officers and revenue Courts. It is the highest Court of appeal and revision in revenue cases of the Province and is the controlling in all matters connecting with the land, collection of the land revenue, preparations of land record and other matters relating thereto. It has power to distribute its business subject to the approval of the Government amongst its members. It has further power to make Rules to regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it. It has also the power to frame Rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, particularly for the purposes described specifically in section 9. None of these provisions justify the conferment of the power of the Board upon a person who is not appointed as a member of the Board. The Board consists of only those persons who have been appointed as members of the Board and all these persons have an everall jurisdiction in regard to the matters described in sections 4, 5 and 6. Section 6 is very specific in this respect and makes the Board arbiter on the question as to how to distribute its business amongst its members although this power is exerciseable subject to the approval of the Government. This provision rules out the possibility of the Government's distributing the business amongst the members of the Board. A fortiori it cannot be permissible for the Government to confer only some of the powers on any person and treat him as a member of the Board. This procedure is foreign to the scheme of the Act. There is only one exception under which an additional member for a particular purpose can be appointed by the Government and that is clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 6 where members acting collectively in judicial capacity are equally divided in regard to the decision on any point arising in the case before them and there is no other member of the Board. An additional member can then be appointed by the Government for the purpose of that case.
8. Mr. S. M. Nasim had not been appointed as a member of the Board of Revenue. He was merely authorised to exercise only powers of the Member, Board of Revenue for disposing of Colony Judicial cases. Clearly, he could not exercise any other power which is conferred upon the Board of Revenue or its members by the Act, in keeping in view the provisions of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 such conferment of only some powers or distribution of business of the Board by the Government is extraneous to the Act. It was rightly held in the case of Ejaz Ahmed that Mr. S. M.
Nasim was not a member of the Board and had no jurisdiction to act as such; the proceedings before him are coram non flake.
9. We, therefore, allow these petitions and quash the orders of Mr. S. M. Nasim as being without lawful authority. The effect of this order is that the revision petition of the petitioners in the two cases will be re-heard by the Board of Revenue.
' We leave the parties to bear their own costs.