1. Reconsolidation of Mouza Nooro Arain and Khanqah Sharif, Tehsil Bahawalpur ordered by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide memorandum, dated 21-4-1990 has been challenged by the petitioner in the circumstances briefly stated hereunder.
2. Admittedly, consolidated scheme of village Khanqah Sharif was confirmed on 18-8-1970 and that of Nooro Arain on 13-6-1968. It is so admitted in the report submitted by the Board of Revenue. Later on reconsolidation was applied for by Mian Shahab-ud-Din, M.P.A. The case of the petitioner is that this was a move to the prejudice of rights and interests of the petitioner which was done secretly and even no copy of the proceedings or orders was being supplied; It was in view of such assertions that report and parawise comments were called from the Board of Revenue and proceedings in pursuance of order, dated 21-4-1990 were stayed by a learned Bench of this Court.
2. Record was also summoned which was ordered to be sealed and retained by Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in safe custody.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition that it was the influence of respondent No.5 who was then Member, Provincial Assembly that reconsolidation was ordered by the Board of Revenue not for any object or purpose of the Consolidation Holdings Ordinance, 1960 but for extraneous reasons and objects, to the prejudice of the petitioner who is also the landowner there. It is contended that the signatures of certain landowners had been forged who never gave their consent for reconsolidation. In support of this assertion, reference has been made to number of affidavits placed on record sworn by the landowners who denied the signatures or consent for reconsolidation. It is further contended that it was obligatory of the authorities charged with the functions of consolidation to have acted in accordance with law.
4. The respondents are not represented, although, the case has been fixed for hearing after due notice by the .Office to all for today. Learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, however, has appeared for the Board of Revenue/respondent No.9 herein who contends that the Board of Revenue can order consolidation at any time when the majority of the land-holders apply for the same.
5. The Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 provides for the pre-requisites and procedure for consolidation to be followed by the Consolidation Officer who prepares the scheme, if agreed to by the landowners or to prepare a scheme by himself in view of section 9 of the Ordinance. Before approving the scheme, he has however, to publish the same for objections by any person interested and after considering such objections the scheme is to be confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance. The aggrieved parties then are left to avail remedies of appeal or revision provided by sections 11 and 13 of the Ordinance. The scheme of the law indicates the importance of consent and consensus of the landowners. In the present case, what has happened is that reconsolidation of these villages was ordered to be undertaken by the Chief Minister's Secretariat on the desire of the M.P.A. As is apparent from memo., dated 10-3-1990. Since the relevance and importance for the case, it is Mr. Muhammad Jamil Akhtar Javaid, Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur.
3. Mr. Muhammad Majeed Akhtar Langrial, Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Consolidation), No.Acc/168 dated 10-3-1990.
4. Subject: RECONSOLIDATION Memo.
5. Mr. Arshad Bhatti, Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister's Secretariat, rang up today and conveyed that reconsolidation of Nuroo Arain and Khanqah Sharif may be undertaken as according to Mr. Awaisi, M.P.A. 20 years had passed since first consolidation.
6. You are, therefore, requested to examine the matter and take necessary action.
7. (Sd.) Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur.
8. No. A.D.C./Cons./6-41/441 dated 12-3-1990 Copy forwarded to the Consolidation Officer Bahawalpur with the direction that he should prepare the case of both villages for reconsolidation according to instructions of the Board of Revenue and submit to this office for further necessary action within the shortest possible time. Matter should be given Ton Priority (Sd.) Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur.
9. No.A.D.C./Cons./ dated Copy forwarded to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidations), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur for kind information.
10. (Sd.) Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)
11. Bahawalpur. "
6. The perusal of the abovementioned memorandum and noting thereon shows that it was a directive of absolute nature which received a Top Priority from the official concerned, it was followed and the matter was processed within days. The perusal of the record which had been kept in sealed cover by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and has been opened today in the Court shows that Form "A" and Form "B" were filled and completed soon after the memorandum dated 10-3-1990. The order passed by the Board of Revenue on 21-4-1990 for reconsolidation of these villages which is as under:-- "No.1217-90/653-CH(P)I, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Dated 21-4-1990 From The Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
12. To The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur.
13. Subject: Permission for reconsolidation of Mauza Nuroo Arain, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur.
14. Reference: Your memo. No.Acc/4-94/238, dated 8-4-1990 on the above subject.
15. Mr. Hafeezullah Ishaq, Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab.
16. Memorandum The proposal, received with your memo. Under reference, has been considered in the Board of Revenue, Punjab. In the light of Board of Revenue, Punjab, decision conveyed vide this office memo.
17. No.227-86/291-CH(P)I, dated 4-3-1990, the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab is pleased to grant permission for the reconsolidation of Mauza Nuroo Arain, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur, under the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
18. (Sd.) for Secretary (Consolidation).
19. Board of Revenue, Punjab.
20. No. 1217-90/654-CH(P)I.
21. A copy is forwarded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Consolidation), Bahawalpur for information and necessary action.
22. (Sd.) for Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
23. No.ADC/Cons./6-41/665 dated 22-4-1990 Copy forwarded to the Consolidation Officer, Bahawalpur for necessary action and compliance under intimation to this office. He should take over charge from the Revenue Department immediately. Proposal for the posting of experienced, hardworking and honest staff (Kanungo and Patwari) should be submitted for approval.
24. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur.
25. No.ADC/Cons./6-41dated Copy forwarded to Tehsildar, Bahawalpur with the direction that he should hand over the record of Mauza Nuroo Arain, to the Consolidation staff without any delay.
26. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur.
27. No.ADC/Cons./6-41/Dated 22-4-1990 A copy is forwarded for information to--
(1) The Secretary, (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
(2) The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur.
(3) The Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur.
(4) The Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur.
28. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur. "
7. It is, thus, evident as to how the reconsolidation, process commenced, it was processed and sanctioned. It is also evident that it was on the directive of the Chief Minister's Secretariat that reconsolidation was taken in hand. It was not an independent exercise of power vested or jurisdiction existing in the statutory functionaries. Such an exercise of power came to be considered in certain judicial precedents. In Bashir Ahmad and others v. Malik Jehangir Khan Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue and others 1992 M LD 1566, interference in the consolidation matter by the Minister for Consolidation was not approved by this Court and it was held 8 that "the statutory functionaries alone are competent to pass order in respect of consolidation schemes under the Ordinance. The Minister for Consolidation has not been conferred with any authority in regard thereto in C any manner whatsoever and he cannot be permitted to interfere either directly or indirectly in judicial/quasi judicial proceedings finalized by the competent authorities under the Ordinance. This tantamount to invasion into the field reserved for the statutory functionaries under the Ordinance. It also violate: the Constitutional right of the petitioners to be treated in accordance with la'% and to demand obedience to the Constitution and the law by respondent No. l including the Minister. Clearly cognizance of the miscellaneous application by the Minister in respect of judicial/quasi judicial matter duly finalized b3 the Board of Revenue was void, ab initio". Similar view had been taken b3 the Honourable Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan v. Member (Consolidation)
29. Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 1070 and Ghulam Rasul v. Mahmood Ahmad and 42 others 1992 SCM R 136.
8. This being the legal position that even a Minister for Consolidation could not have interfered with the statutory and judicial functions of the authorities empowered to perform, the Chief Minister's Secretariat finds no where any mention in the Ordinance and thus, had no lawful authority to issue such a directive, as a result whereof the statutory functionaries tool upto the matter for reconsolidation of these two villages. Thus, all steps and proceedings taken in pursuance and dictates of memorandum, dates 10-3-1990 cannot be regarded as a fair and independent exercise of statutory powers by the functionaries and have to be declared as illegal. It ma) however, be open for the parties, landowners of the villages to apply for consolidation in accordance with law which shall be processed by the statutory functionaries in a just and fair manner uninfluenced by an) extraneous interference or pressure.
30. As a result of the above, this petition is accepted with the above observation. No order as to costs.