Mst. SALIMUNNISA and 5 other vs AZIZ and another

ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J.--- Mst. Saleem-un-Nisah and five others, petitioners have assailed the remand order dated 5-9-2006 passed by learned Member Board of Revenue N.-W.F.P. Camp Court Abbottabad in Revision Petition No,207 of 2005 and prayed that the same be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The petitioners happened to be landlords while the respondents are their tenants. The former filed a suit in September, 2001 for produce of crops of Rabi 2001 and Kharif 2001 and prayed for rent of Rs,5,000 till decision of the case or any appropriate compensation of produce in respect of Khasra Nos,193 and 194 situated in village Sheikh Abad, Tehsil and District Mansehra.

3. The tenants/respondents contested the suit 2nd the DDOR/trial Court after hearing the parties vide judgment dated 23-9-2003 passed a decree of produce of Rs,13,577 along with ejectment against the tenants/respondents. However, the latter were held entitled to Rs,71,920 as costs of improvements. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, both the parties filed appeals before the DOR/Collector, Mansehra, who vide his order dated 21-5-2004 dismissed the appeals and maintained the order of DDOR, Mansehra. Against the said order two appeals/revisions were filed before the Revenue Appellate Court No,IV, Abbottabad, who vide his order dated 28-7-2005 accepted the appeal/revision of the tenant to the extent of cost of crops during pendency of suit and the tenants were held entitled to Rs,71,920 as costs of improvements. Dissatisfied with the said order, the tenants preferred a revision before Member Board of N.-W.F.P. Camp Court at Abbottabad, who after hearing the parties vide judgment and order dated 5-9-2006 accepted the revision and remanded the case to the Revenue Appellate Court No,IV, Abbottabad with the direction to decide the case on merits in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Board of Revenue did not possess the powers of revision under section 56 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 and, therefore, the impugned order passed in revisional capacity was illegal and without jurisdiction.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Section 4 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 as well as the provisions of the N.-W.F.P.

Tenancy Act; 1950 clearly establish that power of the Board of Revenue of superintendence, control and overseeing the functioning of all revenue officials and revenue Courts in the matter of land revenue and tenancy is well entrenched. A similar question had come up for consideration before the apex Court in the case reported in 1991 SCM R 689; in that it was held that the Board of Revenue possessed the powers of revision. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has got no force.

7. Moreover, it has been settled time and again that the writ .Lies against the final adjudication. The remand order does not finally decide the dispute, as the authority that decided the case earlier has to re-decide it, therefore, this petition against the remand order is not maintainable as the order passed in revision, being not a final order cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

8. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed along with C.M.No,194 of 2006.