JUDGMENT M. AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.-- The petitioner has taken exception to the orders dated 11.3-.V976 and 27.9.1972 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that consolidation scheme of village Ahawala had been confirmed by Collector under Section 10(4) of the Consolidation and Holdings Ordinance, 1960 on 30.3.1987- and in consolidation proceedings the petitioner was given land as under:- class I. 131 K 16 M.
Class IV 33k-7m Converted into Class-I 16 K 14 M Total: 148K 10 M.
The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Addl. Commissioner Consolidation against the order of confirmation.
3. The respondent No. 3 on 15.6.1972 had filed a Misc, application before the Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation)/stating therein that he has been given 8 kanals of land less than his entitlement.
The Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation) treating the application as revision, in his suo motu revisional jurisdiction, accepted the- same and withdrew the excess land < measuring 8 kanals and 7 marlas from the Waada of Dolat Ali present writ petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, Dolat Ali petitioner preferred a revision, petition under Section 13 of the Consolidation and Holdings Ordinance and Member Board of Revenue vide his order dated 11.3.1 976 dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application was filed by respondent No. 3 after expiry of period of limitation and the Commissioner was not competent to convert this petition into a revision; that the petitioner was condemned un-heard and the order in revision by the Addl. Commissioner was passed in absence .Of the petitioner; that the property which was not in ownership of the respondents prior to the consolidation proceedings has been given to him; that an order passed in absence of the parties is a corum- non-judice and every super structure based on such order will also fall to the ground and that the order of Addl. Commissioner has prejudiced the petitioner after the finality is attached to the confirmation of the consolidation scheme.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the Addl. Commissioner has vast powers in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction; that the objection was not urged by the petitioner in his memo, of revision filed before the Member Board of Revenue; that the Member Board of Revenue had heard the petitioner and dealt with by the objection urged before him by the petitioner; that the objection raised by the petitioner was not raised in memo, of the writ petition and the petitioner is estopped to raise objection which was not raised before the competent forum the Member Board of Revenue.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Respondent No. 3 had not filed a revision petition before the Addl. Commissioner Consolidation.
He gave an application to the supply of some information and pointed out some defects in the consolidation scheme, It was the Commissioner who himself exercised his revisional jurisdiction on the information received from the application of the petitioner. Section 13(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 emerges -that (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 Collector has called for the record under sub-section (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 sub-section (1) and a Commissioner may in any case called for by him under sub-section (3), pass such order as it or it 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 opDortunity of being heard. The only condition imposed on the Commissioner while passing the order in his revisional jurisdiction is that a notice shall be issued to the affecting parties and order shall be passed after affording an opportunity of being heard, In the instant case, the Commissioner had issued the notice to the petitioner who refused to accepct the service and thereupon a proclamation was issued in the village but despite this the petitioner did not appear before the Commissioner. However, oh his appeal, his all objections were heard by the Member Board of Revenue and he was afforded full opportunity to argue the case and there is no evidence on the record that any point raised by the petitioner before the Member Board of Revenue have not given due attention or has not been dealt with.
Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Ch. Nasir Ahmad v. Haji Muhammad Ismail (1979 SCM R 262).
8. From the perusal of the order dated 27.9.1972 passed by Addl. Commissioner in suo motu revisional jurisdiction, it is evident that the petitioner refused to accept the service and thereupon a proclamation was issued in the village but the petitioner on this own accord did not turn up. The Addf. Commissioner has performed the requirements of law by issuing notice to the petitioner.
9. As to the objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner could not convert the application filed by respondent Sardar Khan into a revisional jurisdiction. The answer would be that exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960, suo motu is permissible and there is no need of any regular formal revisional application before the Collector or the Board of Revenue by any interested party. The power really vests in the Commissioner and Contrary to the provisions regarding exercise of appellate jurisdiction the Section does not confer any right on an aggrieved party to invoke revisional jurisdiction. A practice undoubtedly has sprung up that applications for this purpose are made and for the simple reason that unless a party gives information or states some facts before the revising authority, it is not easy for that authority to examine all the records or proceedings before the lower Courts and then proceed to exercise revisional powers in such cases a$ is Considered necessary. The arguments of the petitioner that the Commissioner was not competent to convert the application into suo motu revisional jurisdiction being mis-conceived is repelled. This objection was neither raised by the petitioner before the Member Board of Revenue nor it was raised in this Court through the memo, of writ petition and the plea which was not raised before the lower forum could not be raised before the High Court during the hearing of the writ petition. Reliance in this context can be placed to the cases of Munawar Hussain v. The State (2003 PSC (Crl.) 351), Khairati and 4 others v. A/eem- ud-Din and another (PLD 1973 S.C. 295), Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Malik Abdul Qadir Khan and others (PLD 1983 S.C. 68), Mst. Neelam Nawaz v. The State (PLD 1991 SC.640), Messrs Mairai Sons and others v. United Bank Ltd. And others (1985 SCM R 987), Muhammad Ahmad v. Mst. Aziz Begum (1985 SCM R 1962), Mst. Sardaro and others v. Mst. Nazran Begum and others (PLD 1985 S.C. 274), Muhammad Idrees v. Mst. Safia Begum and others (1986 SCMR 795) and Mad Ajab and others v.
Awal Badshah (1984 SCM R 440).
10. The most important feature of the case is that an order/judgment passed by a Court or a Special Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to determine that question can be decided either way and it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity and the High Court would not interfere with the decision of the Court or Tribunal merely because in its opinion the decision was wrong. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Stkandar and others (PLD 1974 S.C. 139). The order has been passed by the Consolidation Authorities and the High Court in writ jurisdiction would not sit in judgment against the decision of the Revenue Authorities in such matters.
Lfearned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders.
11. There is a question of fact involved in . The matter which requires recording of evidence and iTTpreciation of record and the High Court in exercise of 1993 SCMR 618), Benedict F.D., Souza v.
Karachi Building Control, Authority and 3 others (1989 SCM R 918) and Federation of Pakistan and two others v. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan (PLD 1991 S.C. 476).
12. For the foregoing reasons, this , writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed. .