Mst. BAKHT BIBI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
This is a petition under Article 9 of the P.C.O., 1981, whereby Mst. Bakht Bibi and 14 others, the petitioners want this Court to declare order, fated 23‑7‑1981 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, and orders dated 4‑11‑1982, 20‑12‑1982 and 11‑1‑1983 passed by the Extra Assistant Colonization officer, Leiah, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the disputed land was adjusted in favour of the petitioners on 19‑5‑1976. In the year 1981 the EA.C.O., Leiah, made a report to the Board of Revenue to the effect that order of adjustment dated 19‑5‑1976 in favour of the petitioners having been calculated on wrong basis was liable to be reviewed. He, therefore, sought permission to review the same. Thereafter, the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, vide his order dated 23‑7‑1981 purportedly in the exercise of power under Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, granted permission to review. The EA.C.O. while sitting in review cancelled the previous adjustment order in favour of the petitioners vide his order dated 8‑11‑1982 and reduced the entitlement of the petitioners. After having reduced the entitlement of the petitioners, he, adjusted the land to Mst. Aisha Sultan as respondent No. 5 and Mst. Khurshid Jahan, respondent No. 6 vide his orders dated 20‑12‑1982 and 11‑1‑1983, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that neither the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue had any authority to sanction review of order dated 19‑5‑1976 nor could the E.A.C.O. himself review the same, therefore, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. The learned counsel, plains that order dated 13‑9‑1976 was passed under Section 21(2) of Thal amended by Thal Development Act 1949, as amended by Thal Develoopment Act, 1955, i.e. Act 20 read wish relevant instructions and in exercise of powers as delegated by the Administrator, Thal Development, therefore, the order dated 15‑9‑1976 could not be allowed to be reviewed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act because this Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Thal Development Act. Further, Thal Development Colonization's Appeal and Revision Rules, 1973, which are framed under Section 50 of the Thal Development Act do not make any provision for review. As against this the learned counsel for the respondents has frankly and very rightly admitted that specific powers of review are not available to the EA.C.O. under Thal Development Act or the Rules framed therein and that Land Revenue Act, 1967, is not wholly applicable. He, however, contended that the E.A.C.O., who had allotted the land was also competent to cancel the same under the General Clauses Act.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the E.A.C.O., in the absence of any specific provisions of .Jaw was competent to review the order dated 19‑5‑1976 after more than six years. Be that as it may, the fact remains was that the E.A.C.O., has concealed the adjustment order dated 15‑9‑1976 in pursuance of the sanction granted by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue under Land Revenue Act, 1967, which is not applicable to the proceedings under Thal Development Act.
5. ???????? For all these reasons it is declared that the impugned orders have been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. Needless to add that I this judgment shall not debar the Thal Development Authorities from proceeding in accordance with law, if so advised.
6. Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
M.H.Y./2771/1. ??????????
Petition accepted.