This Constitution petition has been filed to challenge order dated 22-3-1999 passed by the Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue/respondent No.1 disposing of the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 with a direction to the District Collector to act in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 had filed at-, application before Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Okara for correction of Missal-i---Haqiyyat for the year 1976-77, which was dismissed by him vide order dated 5-12-1993. He mentioned therein that respondent No.2 had approached him for correction of the record after 17 years. The appeal filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed by the, learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 21-4- 1996. Thereafter respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was merely disposed of with a direction to the Collector to act in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is vague being inefficacious as the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner have not been set aside and the Collector has been generally ordered to act in accordance with the instructions of the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Board of Revenue ought to have allowed the respondent revision, petition and set aside the impugned orders with a clear direction to show the thoroughfare in Khasara Nos.2/27, 2/28 and 3/64.
3. After going through the impugned order, I find that there was no proper decision or disposal of the revision petition filed by respondent No.2. The revision petition has been merely disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to follow the instructions of the Board of Revenue. Neither the revision petition has been accepted nor the impugned orders passed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner have been set aside. No effort has been made in the impugned order to meet the reasoning advanced by the learned District Collector and the Additional Commissioner in their orders.
4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 22-3-1999 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside with a direction to him to decide the revision petition filed by respondent No.2 afresh, on merits in accordance with the law.