ENT KARAMAT NAM BHANDARI, J.--- The consolidation scheme of the subject village stood finally confirmed in the year 1981 after the disposal of appeals/revisions. In the year 1991 an application was made by some of the land owners for re-consolidation. This application was inquired into by the Resident Magistrate who reported that majority of the landowners did not want re- consolidation. In October, 1993, Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 granted permission for re- consolidation but this permission was withdrawn on 25.10.1994, on representation being made. It was again in, the year 1996 the Board of Revenue directed reopening of consolidation, apparently in pursuance to a letter issued by the Local MNA. It is 'this order of the Board of Revenue dated 4.12.1996, which is being challenged through this constitutional petition.
2. Apart from other facts, it is pleaded that the fresh permission of the respondent No. Is vitiated on account of interference of the MNA and that respondent No. 1 has not applied independent mind before granting permission. It is also stated that once having withdrawn the permission, respondent No. I could not direct re-consolidation on the basis of same facts and circumstances.
3. Only the comments of Assistant Commissioner, Phalia, are on file. In reply to most paragraphs he has written "Not applicable". Under para 10, however, he admits that inquiry was conducted by his predecessor who recommended for cancellation of the consolidation operation. It is curious that Board of Revenue has not tiled any reply stating the reasons for granting fresh permission.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate General has, however, attempted to meet the argument of proceedings being vitiated by pointing out that on 4.12.199.6 the Assembly stood dissolved and there was no MNA to influence the decision of respondent No. I. Factually this may be correct.
However, ,annex "D" the communication from Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), to Board of Revenue does state "The requisite original D.O. Letter of Ch. Zafar Ullah Tarar, M.N.A. Mandi Bahaud- Din is sent herewith as desired please for further necessary action". It can be judicially noticed that Assemblies were dissolved on 5th or 6th of November, 1996. In other words, when this letter Annex "D" was written, the MNA was very much there. In the circumstances it does seem that respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order extraneous influence of MNA. This interference is further consolidated by the fact that no reasons have been disclosed by respondent No. I as to why in December 1996, it was directing re-consolidation when it itself withdrew the earlier permission in 1994. Learned Assistant Advocate General has not pleaded any change of circumstances so as to justify the impugned permission.
5. Learned counsel has further pointed out that even in subsequent consolidation operations the authorities have recommended dropping of the same. In this connection he has invited attention to the report made by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Annex "G") and by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Annex "H".
6. In their reports those officers are maintaining that the majority of landowners did not want re- consolidation and, therefore, the proceedings he dropped.
7. For all the above reasons, I hold the impugned order to have been issued without lawful authority and Consequently of no legal effect. Any proceedings taken in pursuance to the impugned order are also of no effect. I further hold that the scheme earlier, confirmed in 1981 shall hold the field.
Respondents will pay the costs of this petition.