GHAZANFAR ALI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑ ‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings held in village Talwandi Musa Khan of Tehsil and District Gujranwala. On a complaint made to the Minister for Revenue by some of the land owners in the estate, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Colonisation Officer (headquarters). He prepared a detailed report showing that numerous irregularities had been committed during the course of consolidation proceedings. On receipt of the report and after notice to the parties, the Additional Commissioner exercising his suo motu revisional jurisdiction, set aside the proceedings and directed that fresh consolidation operations be undertaken. He also directed that no right holder should be allowed to retain both his previous as well as post consolidation holdings. Consequent upon the order of the Additional Commissioner, the Additional Deputy Commissioner prepared a fresh scheme and in due course confirmed it. Under the new scheme, inter alia, he took away 11 acres' of land from respondents Nos.6 to 15 at Chah Sardaniwala and gave them to the petitioners. The said respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which succeeded. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. A learned Member of the Board partly accepted the revision petition inasmuch as he gave 8 acres of land at Chah Sardaniwala to the petitioners. Respondents No.6 to 15 challenged the order of the learned Member in writ jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the learned Member to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is inter alia contended that in writ jurisdiction it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the orders of the consolidation authorities with regard to allocation of land and in support of this contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar and others P L D 1974 S C 139. It is also pointed out that the learned Judge in the High Court has misread the order of the Additional Commissioner whereby he had set aside the previous consolidation proceedings inasmuch as the Additional Commissioner had not given any direction that the holdings already transferred to the parties should not be interfered with. A grievance has also been made to the effect that if the learned Judge had found that the order of the Board of Revenue suffered from any irregularity, he should have remanded the case back to the Board for reconsideration.
3. The above and other contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. The order with regard to maintenance of status quo already made by this Court on 28‑4‑1981 to continue in the same terms during the pendency of the appeal.
M. I. /G‑118/S Leave granted.