Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 432 of 1985, in Civil Petition for. Special Leave to Appeal No. 631 of 1977,doecided on 20th November, 1985.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Consolidation 'of land‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether while remanding case, Member, Board of Revenue acted in accordance with law by affecting rights of petitioner in property.

‑‑‑Consolidation of land‑‑Appellant's rights in property affected without giving him a chance of hearing‑‑Order impugned being in violation of principles of natural justice, set aside and case remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

S.M. Almas, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Qazi Umar Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court and Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th November, 1985.

Facts of this case briefly stated are that consolidation scheme of Mauza Mukhiana, Tehsil and District Jhang, was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector (Consolidation) on 25‑2‑1971. Respondents 1 to 12 herein filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, against 50 persons, including Umra petitioner. The appeal was partly accepted by the Additional Commissioner by the order, dated 17‑6‑1971, and as regards petitioner, it was clarified in the order that "as there is no direct dispute between Umra respondent and Allah Yar appellant, the Wanda of Umra respondent should not be touched upon by the A.C.O."

2. On remand the Collector (Consolidation) as well as the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on appeal did not affect the scheme of the petitioner, in fact he was not even made a party to the appellate proceedings. However, finally respondents 1 and 10 filed a revision application before Member, Board of Revenue in which petitioner was cited as respondent 38. Learned Member, Board of Revenue partly heard the revision application on 2‑8‑1977 and as petitioner was not a party before the Additional Commissioner nor his Wanda was affected, learned Member deleted petitioner's name from the list of respondents on that day. Finally, learned Member heard the revision petition on 2‑8‑1977 and by the order passed that day he remanded the case to the Collector (Consolidation) for fresh decision. While remanding the case the learned Member, Board of Revenue however made the following observations;‑

"...I find from the record that these disputed Khasra numbers belonged to Umra respondent No.38 of scheme No.314. But this respondent was deleted by me vide my earlier order dated 2‑8‑1977 as the Collector's order dated 4‑12‑1973 did not affect him. It would have been better if Khasra No.14/2 (6K‑13M), 17/2 (6K‑16M) and 15‑Min Gharbi (2K‑9M) of square No. 100 Were allotted to Umra son of Rana of scheme No.314 who should surrender an equal area from Khasras Nos.10 and 11 of square No. 62 to Karam Ali etc. respondents of scheme No. 33 adjoining their plot. Karam Ali etc. respondents will surrender the disputed Khasra numbers 9/2 (9K‑4M), 10(8K‑18M) of square No. 41 and 14/2/1 (1K‑13M) of square No.42 to petitioners Allah Yar etc. of scheme No.300. Since Umra respondent of scheme No.314 is not present, the case is remanded to the Collector (Cons.) who will make necessary adjustments in the scheme of the parties in the light of above observations after hearing the parties concerned,"

Against the above order which was passed ex parte, petitioner filed a constitution petition in Lahore High Court which was however dismissed by the judgment dated 9‑10‑1977.

3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to consider whether while remanding the case learned Member, Board of Revenue acted in accordance with law by affecting the rights of the petitioner, in the property.

4. Since obviously petitioner's rights in property could not be affected without granting him a chance of hearing, the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 30‑8‑1977 having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice must be set aside. Learned counsel for both the parties stated that they would be satisfied if the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue is set aside, and the case is remanded to him for fresh decision in accordance with law.

5. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue, remand the case to the Member, Board of Revenue for fresh decision in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to all the parties likely to be affected by his decision. The parties are at liberty to raise all pleas before the learned Member, Board of Revenue that may be available to them including the plea of jurisdiction'. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

M. I. Order accordingly,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.