MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Versus MINISTER FOR CONSOLIDATION

ORDER

The Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue is impleaded as respondent No.5, on the oral request of the counsel.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order of former Minister for Consolidation, Government of the Punjab ordering re‑consolidation of Village Thatta Kalian, Tehsil Hafizabad District Gujranwala.

3. The main ground being urged in support of the writ petition is that the Minister had no authority, power or jurisdiction to pass a mechanical order for re‑consolidation or fresh consolidation arbitrarily and in contravention of law, one way or the other. annexures 'A' is the memorandum from the Board of Revenue dated 25th January, 1987 conveying the order of the Member, Board of Revenue under the orders of the Minister for Consolidation that there was no need for reconsolidation in village Thatta Kafian, Tehsil Hafizabad District

Gujranwaia as the majority of land owners was not in favour of reconsolidation. Surprisingly it was followed by a direct order by the Minister for Consolidation himself vide order dated 11‑6‑1987 ordering that order for reconsolidation has already been passed and report be submitted within a week,

4. Apart from the confused state of affairs as is reflected from a reference to the two annexures, there cannot be spelt out any power for the Minister to interfere with the consolidation scheme in the four corners of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. It is agreed on all hands that Minister's order was not backed by any provision of law and thus is devoid of legal validity. Moreover, the order was passed to the prejudice of the persons without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The impugned order of the former Minister for Consolidation is, ‑therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on a mere technical view, the respondents should not be made to suffer injustice as a result of illegalities, forgeries and fraud committed in the course of consolidation operation. He submits that the matter should be remanded to the Member (‑Consolidation) Board of Revenue for examination of the grievances of the land‑holders who enjoys ample power to remedy the wrongs and redress, grievances sitting at the apex of the consolidation administration in the province. This plea is not opposed by the petitioners' learned counsel with a rider that the onus should be on the respondents to make out a case for re‑consolidation and no observation in this order should be construed as obliging the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue to toe a dotted line. The learned counsel for the respondents agrees.

6. However, I can do no better than refer to illuminating enunciation of law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Najabat Ali v. Bashir Ahmed etc. P L D 1987 S C 16 inter alia, holding that: where a consolidation scheme is found to be so offensive to the requirements of law, appears on the face of it to be unjust and unfair, 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."

In view of the above dicta, the burden would fail on the shoulders of the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue to ensure that rights of citizens in valuable village immovable property which they hold so dear to them are not squandered, usurped Or it thrown to the winds. It would, of course, be open to the parties to assist the Member to dispense justice in accordance with law. The learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue would endeavour to finalize the matter in the next three months and decide it in accordance with law after hearing the affected parties. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

M. B. A. /M-696/L Order accordingly.