Consolidation operation in Mouza Dhool Rukhna, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara commenced in the year, 1981 and the scheme was confirmed on 26-12-198.1. Majority of the land-holders were not satisfied with the said scheme who filed a petition before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division, Lahore. After noticing a number of irregularities therein and the report of the Collector (Consolidation), he ordered the annulment of the scheme in exercise of powers under section 13 of the Consolidation Holding Ordinance, 1960 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for fresh consolidation with certain guidelines provided by him. This was vide order, dated 25-6-1985. Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Ashraf, Fakhar Hayat and Muhammad Shaft, some of respondents herein filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 19-12-1985. A review was then filed by them which was dismissed on 30-9-1986. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter was not agitated any further, however, suo motu revisional jurisdiction was later exercised by learned Member on 21-1-1987 who proceeded to set aside the order .Of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, dated 25-6-1985 and restored the scheme, dated 26-12-1981. This order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that against the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 25-6-1985, the respondents had invoked the revisional jurisdiction which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue as also their review there against; it was not permissible under.Section 13 of the Ordinance to have invoked the suo motu revisional powers to set aside the judicial orders already passed by the Board of Revenue.
3. Respondents Nos.2 to 9 had been served and were represented by a learned counsel whose name appears in the cause list. The case has also been listed for hearing after notice to the parties for today. Still none has entered appearance today. The case has, thus, been heard ex parte.
4. It cannot be disputed that after the order had been passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 25-6-1985 annulling the consolidation scheme, a revision petition was filed there against by the respondents which was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Saeed-ul-Hassar, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 19-12-1985. After hearing the parties concerned, it was observed by him, that "the perusal of the impugned order shows that there were numerous irregularities defects in the scheme such as Darja Bandi of land has not been done in the village, work of consolidation was started in the village without obtaining the consent of at least 51 % of the right-holders and out of 227 Khatadars only 52 right--holders proposed Tareeqa Taqseem. These are obviously such type of irregularities which could not be rectified by way of filing appeals etc. Further, Mushtari Munadi had also been conducted in the village about the time of the visit of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), therefore, the excuse of the petitioners being unheard is unwarranted. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) has passed just and proper order". Dissatisfied with the same, the respondents filed a review petition, which was dismissed by Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Khan Leghari, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 30-9-1986. It is after that the abovesaid judicial remedies had been availed and exhausted that suo motu revisional power was exercised by Mr. Sajjad-ul-Hassan, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore who by accepting the revision petition set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 25-6-1985.
5. In order to judge the tenability of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such power was available with the learned Member, Board of Revenue in the circumstances of the case in view of section 13(1)(a) of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1969, the said provision of law needs to be perused. It is as follows:-- Section 13. Power to call for and examine record.--- (1) The Board of Revenue may:
(a) at any time of its own motion call for the record of any proceedings under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer; or
(b) on an application made to it in that behalf by a person aggrieved without 90 days of the passing of an order in any proceedings under this Ordinance by any Revenue or Consolidation Officer, and after giving such person an opportunity of being heard, call for the record of such proceedings.
(2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case under this Ordinance pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer under his control.
(3) If in any case in which a Collector has called for the record under subsection (2) he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Commissioner.
(4) The Board of Revenue may in any case called for under subsection
(1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under subsection (3), pass such order as it or he thinks fit."
The Additional Commissioner while passing order, dated 25-6-1985 had exercised power available to him under subsection (2) (ibid) whereas the suo motu revisional jurisdiction was exercised by the learned Member, Board of Revenue which could be available under section 13(1)(a). The reading of clause (a) of subsection (1) (ibid) would show that the Board of Revenue can exercise this power and "call for the record of any proceedings under this Ordinance pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer". Undoubtedly extensive and wide power vests in the Board of Revenue if the proceedings under the Ordinance are "pending or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer". Clause (e) of section 2 of the Ordinance defines a "Consolidation Officer" which means an officer appointed by the Board of Revenue or by any officer specially empowered by the Board of Revenue in this behalf to perform all or any of the functions of a Consolidation Officer under this Ordinance". It does not include within its ambit the Board of Revenue itself. There seems to be a rationale behind the above provision of law that once an order has been passed by the Board of Revenue itself in revisional jurisdiction under section 13 of the Ordinance, it could be open to review but no further revisional jurisdiction could be exercised qua its own order. An officer of coordinate jurisdiction is not vested with the revisional power., Section 13 of the Ordinance came up for consideration in Sufaid Khan and others v. M.B.R. (Consolidation) and others NLR 1982 Revenue 87 and it was observed by a learned Single Judge of this Court that" the Board of Revenue acts in a dual capacity. On the administrative side, it controls the consolidation proceedings and on the judicial side it deals with the matter arising out of it. But once a matter has been decided on the judicial side, the exercise of executive authority to nullify the effect of judicial, decisions will be an improper exercise of authority". Such a view was even taken by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue in Noor Khan v. Lal Khan and 2 others PLD 1983 Revenue 11 that after the dismissal of a revision petition, inquiry under suo motu powers could not be ordered. .
6. In 'the present case, however, while exercising this power, the learned Member, Board of Revenue ignored the material aspect that the order of the Additional Commissioner, dated 25-6-1985 had merged into the revisional order, dated 19-12-1985 passed by Mr. Saeed-ul-Hassan, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Purijab, Lahore against which even a review petition had been dismissed by Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Khan Leghari, learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The learned Member, Board of Revenue failed to notice that he was indeed revising two judicial orders passed by the Board of Revenue, one passed in revisional jurisdiction and the other passed in review jurisdiction. Such a power did not vest with the learned Member, Board of Revenue under section 13 of the Ordinance. While passing order, dated 21-1-1987, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has over-stepped the jurisdictional sphere which order is not sustainable in law.
For the above reasons, order, dated 21-1-1987 is declared as illegal and of no legal effect. This petition is-accepted. No order as to costs.