GHULAM HAIDER SHAH Versus LAL SHAH

1. This petition calling in question order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 28‑12‑1987 setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan/D.G. Khan dated 31‑8‑1985 has arisen out of the following facts:

2. Consolidation Scheme No.609 of Mauza Muhammad Pur Hambi, Tehsil Jampur, District Rajanpur, confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 29‑12‑1983, was upheld by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Rajanpur vide order dated 4‑6‑1985 in appeal preferred by respondents 32 and 33; who thereafter, questioned its legality before Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan/D.G. Khan in revision which was also dismissed on 29‑7‑1987, mainly on the ground that all the remaining land holders in the scheme being party to the proceedings did not manifest any grievance. Petitioners, after a period of one year and 7 months, challenged order of the Collector (Consolidation), D.G. Khan dated 4‑6‑1985. In revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan/D.G. Khan, which was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, for fresh decision on merits. Respondents 1 to 8, feeling aggrieved questioned vires of the remand order by virtue of Revision Petition No. 2219 of 1985, before the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the learned Member, vide the impugned order dated 28‑12‑1987 on the ground that the second revision petition was not maintainable. Hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel contends that the revision before the Board of Revenue was not competent.

4. I am afraid, the contention is misconceived. The revisional power enshrined in section 13 of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is very widely worded, enabling Member, Board of Revenue to call for and examine record of any proceedings either pending or disposed of by Revenue Officer or Consolidation Officer. On merits, I am of the view that the impugned order is unexceptionable for the reason that the scheme in question was confirmed by Consolidation Officer on 29‑12‑1983, which was upheld in appeal by the Collector (Consolidation) vide order dated 4‑6‑1985, against which revision was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan/D.G. Khan vide order dated 29‑7‑1985 in which petitioners were respondents; therefore, second revision at their behest before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was' not maintainable, on the principle of res judicata, since the matter between the parties stood finally adjudged and concluded before al Court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the above, this petition has no merits and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed in limine.

5. H . B . T . / G‑153 / L ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition dismissed.