' The consolidation operation in village Chunian Otar, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, has given rise to the litigation between the parties. The scheme was confirmed in the year 1995. Admittedly, feeling aggrieved thereof 125 appeals were filed by the aggrieved persons. Some of them were disposed of and some are still pending. Muhammad Yousaf and others, however, made an application, dated 2-4-2001, before the Provincial Ombudsman, Punjab, Lahore alleging illegalities and malpractices, which complaint was forwarded to the Board of Revenue Punjab. The matter was processed, reports were obtained by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue Punjab, then seized of the matter from the field officials, as a result large number of irregularities and illegalities came to light. The learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue on taking account of the same, proceeded to annul the consolidation scheme vide his order, dated 12-10-2002. That order was assailed through W.P. No,20233 of 2002 which petition was accepted on 3-7-2003 observing that:- ' "Apart from the well-entrenched and settled principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard in a matter, likely to adversely affect his rights and interest, there is a specific provision in the law i.e, section 13 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Proviso to subsection (4) of section 13 of the Ordinance envisages that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is to be given to all those persons who are likely to be affected by the order. By denying adjournment and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the above provision of law and the principle of natural justice was disregarded by respondent No,1 in the matter. He was also wrong in treating the case and disposing it of on "executive side" as the matter fell within the judicial realm inasmuch as per clause (xii) of the impugned memorandum itself as many as 125 appeals/revisions had been filed qua the scheme out of which 105 had already been decided. The right so having accrued in favour of such parties, as a result of judicial determination by the appellate/revisional forum, could not be trampled nor denuded through executive dispensation. The order thus on both these counts, is unsustainable in law. It is declared so as of no legal effect. The result however, would be that the matter will be deemed pending before the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore who would hear and decide the same judicially by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned who are likely to be affected by the result of the same. Let the petitioners and the respondents who are represented before this Court, cause their presence before the learned Member on 30-7-2003. Needless to reiterate that the presence of other owners in the estate will also be secured by the learned Member before passing any order in the matter."
' Statedly, the above order was not assailed by any of the parties any further. As a sequel thereto, the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue has vide order, dated 5-5-2004 after reconsidering the matter and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that 'there was no alternative but to annul the consolidation scheme in the interest of the right holders of the revenue estate'. This order has been assailed through this petition and W.P. No,8665 of 2004, W.P. No,11043 of 2004 and W.P. No,13069 of 2004, which will stand disposed of through this order.
2. The learned counsel for the parties and the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, has been heard.
3. In assailing the impugned order, it is contended by Mr. Zafar Iqbal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the matter had been agitated by aggrieved parties by means of appeals/ revisions before the judicial forum, it could not be dealt with on executive side by the Board of Revenue and the order annulling the scheme is without lawful authority. According to him Muhammad Yousaf and others were not the aggrieved persons and thus, had no locus standi to make any complaint before the Provincial Ombudsman nor the. Board of Revenue could on such a complaint annul the scheme. It is contended that the consolidation which had become final could not be reopened after such a long time. It is contended that the reconsolidation will disturb and upset large number of owners who have either setup industrial units or raised construction.
Referring to Rule 52 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holding Rule, 1998, it is contended that though power of annulment of consolidation scheme vests with the Board of Revenue, yet this Rule had no retrospective effect and thus, was not applicable. Reference has been made by him to Shamir Khan v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 8 others PLD 1992 SC 333 and Muhammad Khan and 91 others v. Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division, Lahore and 85 others 1999 M LD 1048. Mr. Muhammad Ijaz Lashari, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No,11043 of 2004 while adopting contentions of Mr. Zafar Iqbal Ch. Advocate has added that reasons given by the Board of Revenue are 'self-confusing" and no specific ground has been given for annulment of the scheme.
' The learned Additional Advocate-General, makes reference to the seriatim illegalities/irregularities noted by the Member, Board of Revenue which persuaded him to annul the scheme. According to him, the power under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, is quite vast which empowers the Board of Revenue to call for record of any case which is "pending" or "disposed of It is contended that the learned Member has on full satisfaction after considering the relevant record proceeded to annul the scheme. Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate has also supported the order passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue and points out that about 426 schemes had been tampered and changed by the officials as has been noted by the learned Member and that gross illegalities and irregularities committed in the consolidation of this Mauza persuaded him to annul the scheme.
4. The respective contentions have been considered in the light of the material on the record. It may be noted at the outset that in the scheme of the Ordinance, the consolidation scheme is prepared by the Consolidation Officer under section 10 of the Ordinance. The scheme when confirmed is open to challenge by any aggrieved person through appeal under section 11. Then figures section 13, the provisions whereof are important in the context of controversy, which reads as under:-- ' "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 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 (2) or reported to him under subsection (3), pass such order as it or he thinks fit: Provided that no order shall be passed under this section reversing or modifying any proceedings or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and affecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard."
5. As is evident from the perusal of the above provisions, the Board of Revenue has the power to call for the record of any proceedings under the Ordinance "at any time" whether the matter is "pending" or had been "disposed of by the Consolidation Officer and pass such order as "it thinks fit". When compared with the revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by section 115, C.P.C., the difference in the scope and content becomes quite obvious. The ambit and the scope of powers under section 13 of the Ordinance is apparently large and extensive. It is akin to the provisions of section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The power thus, is not hedged by any such constraint or limitation as is being projected. The only requirement is that before passing any order, reversing or modifying the proceedings or order of the subordinate official, opportunity of hearing is to be afforded to the person concerned. This is the aim and object of subsection (4) of the Ordinance. In Abdul Majid Khan and others v. Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) and others 1986 M LD 782; it was observed that when irregularities and illegalities go to the very root of the matter, the Board of Revenue could justifiably direct fresh consolidation of the village. In Kala v.
Board of Revenue and another PLD 1985 SC 208, the scope of powers of Board of Revenue qua section 13 of the Ordinance, came to be considered before their Lordships and it was observed that:-- "The power preserved under section 13, on the other hand, as the scheme of the Ordinance plainly shows, is the power of superintendence and control over the subordinate functionaries in the structure of the authorities envisaged under the Ordinance. This power appears to be vast and unbridled in its scope and amplitude, as there are no statutory limitations placed upon its reach and the manner and its exercise except the time limits on its recourse on motion of a party, and that also, in the case of Board of Revenue."
' It was further observed that:- "We hold that the order, of the Board of Revenue impugned in these proceedings did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction on the ground that intermediary steps of filing appeals before the lower authorities were not taken by the applicant in the revision."
' In Najabat Ali v. Bashir Ahmad and others PLD 1987 SC 16, it was observed that "Where a consolidation scheme is found to be so offensive to the requirements of the law, appears on the face of it to be unjust and unfair, the Consolidation authorities are under a duty to reject it even though it be based on compromise or undertaking among the parties or most of them". Such is the power vested in the Board of Revenue and conceded by law, who is to supervise that the process of consolidation is undertaken in accordance with law without affecting the rights of the land owners.
It may be noted that the mere filing of appeal by some of the aggrieved persons in the hierarchy would not denude the Board of Revenue of its powers vested in it under section 13 of the Ordinance, who happens to be at the apex of that hierarchy and charged with the supervisory duty under the law. It is, however, for the Board of Revenue to consider in each case when it comes before it, the nature, amplitude and import of such illegalities and irregularities and to determine whether it appropriately attracts its jurisdiction and power of annulment of the scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the scope and extent of the power of Board of Revenue is thus, untenable and cannot be countenanced.
6. Insofar as the view taken by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, as to annulment of scheme is concerned, suffice it to observe that large number of illegalities and irregularities having been committed in the formation of the scheme, had been noted by Mr. Sarfraz-ul-Haq Baig, Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue Punjab at the time of passing of order, dated 12-10-2002. The said order, however, was declared as of no legal effect as all the affected parties had not been heard in the matter. Now Syed Shaukat Ali Shah, Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue Punjab has on consideration of the reports obtained from the field officials and the relevant record, also noted more than ten glaring illegalities and irregularities which impelled him to annul the scheme. It may be observed that extensive hearing was given by him to the parties and their learned counsel, who noted their respective contentions and thereafter recorded his conclusion. It has been noted that:-- "(a) State land including Auqaf Department land was illegally transferred without permission.
(b) That the consolidation work was done in haphazard manner without adherence to the rules and instructions and against the mode of partition.
(c) That the land of the village has been amalgamated in the land of surrounding villages.
(d) That welfare of the general public by creating various paths, roads, Ihatas, Chahs and graveyards was not kept in view.
(e) That some persons have been illegally benefited at the cost of others.
(f) That the Qanungo did not perform his duties in the manners prescribed by law.
(g) That even after the confirmation of scheme, 416 schemes/ Wandas were amended through interpolations and the then C.O. Muhammad Anwar subsequently denied having put his signatures on the register scheme.
(h) The disputed nature of the consolidation scheme is proved by the fact that only 1/4th possessions have been changed.
(i) That physical completion from Kishtwari to Killa Bandi was not done.
(j) That the matelled road running through the revenue estate has been shown in Shajra/Mussavi 2-K.M. Away from its actual existence."
' It was further noted by him that the Government land had been dished out to various persons as a result of collusion of the staff by making interpolations in the record. The view so formed by the learned Member after examining the record and hearing the parties is based on his satisfaction that there was no alternative but to annul the consolidation scheme in the interest of right holders of the revenue estate which cannot be substituted by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It may be added that report submitted by the Board of Revenue also shows that 431 illegal amendments were made after the confirmation of the scheme. Even large number of filing of appeals (25) qua the scheme would also lead to the impression and conclusion that the scheme had not been prepared in accordance with law which suffered from illegalities/irregularities and malpractices. I am thus, unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has in any way acted illegally in the matter.
' In the circumstances, the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue was fully justified to annul the scheme and to direct reconsolidation in the village. Such an order does not warrant interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It may be observed that the time schedule was given by the learned Member for completion of the consolidation which time schedule will be adhered to with necessary modifications and the time consumed before this Court in these proceedings will be taken into account.
' The petition is dismissed accordingly for the reasons stated above. No order as to costs.