GHULAM ABBAS vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 5
This matter concerns the appointment of a Lambardar for Chak No. 281/EB, Tehsil Burewala. The core legal question was whether respondents who had failed to challenge the dismissal of their appeals by the Commissioner against an initial appointment order could re-enter the litigation process following a subsequent remand order by the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that the respondents, having allowed the Commissioner's order dismissing their appeals to attain finality, had effectively exited the litigation arena. Consequently, a later remand order by the Board of Revenue, which was upheld by the High Court, did not revive their right to contest the appointment. The Court ruled that the Board of Revenue correctly confined the controversy to the remaining active contestants. The principle established is that parties who fail to challenge an adverse appellate order cannot subsequently re-litigate their claims upon a remand order issued in proceedings to which they are no longer parties, as the initial finality of the appellate dismissal precludes their re-entry into the dispute.
- Can a party who fails to challenge an appellate order dismissing their appeal re-enter litigation following a subsequent remand order in the same case?
- Does a remand order by the Board of Revenue revive the claims of parties whose previous appeals were already dismissed and not further challenged?
- Is the scope of a remand order limited to the remaining active contestants when some parties have already exited the litigation process?
- Rule 17, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-This order will dispose of C.P. No,1067/L of 1991 and C.P. No,1068/L of 1991 as these challenge the same order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-10-1991.
1. Relevant facts are that on the death of Mumtaz Ahmad Khan Awan, Lambardar of Chak No,281/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari on 22-6-1979 the post fell vacant. Numerous persons applied for the post. The learned Collector Vehari vide order, dated 27-7-1981 appointed Ghulam Abbas petitioner as a permanent Lamberdar. Against this order five appeals were filed by Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Fazil, Muhammad Ashraf, Allah Ditta and Sakhi Ditta. All the appeals were dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Multan Division vide order, dated 28-2-1982. Allah Ditta and Muhammad Fazil filed separate revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
Revision petition of Allah Ditta was dismissed in limine by a learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 13-6-1982. However, his review application and revision petition of Muhammad Fazil were accepted by another learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 22-5-1984 whereby the case was remanded back to the Collector for fresh decision on merits. This order was challenged by Ghulam Abbas petitioner through Constitution Petition No,761 of 1984 which was disposed of with the following observations: "In this view of the matter while upholding the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 22-5-1984 passed on the revision of Muhammad Fazil, respondent No3 as regards remand of the case, which I would not like to interfere with being not a final order, I direct that the learned District Collector, Vehari shall decide the controversy of appointment of Lamberdar of Chak No,281/EB Burewala in accordance with law, and while doing so take into consideration all the requirements of Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules which have to be read conjunctively to arrive at a decision regarding suitability/appointment of a Lamberdar. The learned District Collector shall adjudicate upon the matter afresh in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned."
' This is vide order, dated 12-2-1985. In remand proceedings, the learned Collector, Vehari appointed Muhammad Ashraf respondent No,5 as a Lamberdar. Ghulam Abbas petitioner, Muhammad Maroof respondent No,4 and Muhammad Fazil respondent No,6 filed separate appeals. The learned Commissioner, Multan accepted the appeal of Muhammad Maroof respondent No,4 and appointed him as a Lamberdar vide order, dated 27-7-1987. Ghulam Abbas petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf respondent No,5 and Muhammad Fazil respondent No,6 filed separate revision petitions before the Board of Revenue Punjab. A learned Member, Board of Revenue accepted the revision petition of the petitioner Ghulam Abbas and appointed him as a permanent Lamberdar and rejected the revision petitions of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Fazil respondents Nos.5 and 6 respectively. This is vide order, dated 24-7-1990. This was challenged by Muhammad Maroof and Muhammad Ashraf respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively through separate Writ Petitions Nos.2229 of 1990 and 765 of 1991 in the Lahore High Court. It was contended on their behalf that the learned Member, Board of Revenue fell in error in confining the dispute between the petitioner Ghulam Abbas and Fazil respondent No,6 as if the order of the High Court, dated 12-2-1985 had limited the controversy amongst them because the High Court had upheld the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 22-5-1984 which had remanded the case for fresh decision and so also had done the High Court when it remanded the case to the District Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law. The contention prevailed with the learned Judge of the High Court. The order of the Member of Board of Revenue, dated 247- 1990 by which the petitioner was appointed as Lamberdar was set aside and the revision petitions of Muhammad Maroof and Muhammad Ashraf respondents Nos.4 and 5 respectively were directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law. This is vide order, dated 16-10-1991. The petitioner sought leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against the order of appointment of the petitioner by Collector, dated 27-7-1981, Muhammad Fazil and Muhammad Ashraf respondents Nos.6 and 5 respectively filed appeals before the Commissioner which were dismissed on 28-2- 1982. They did not file any revision petition before the Board of Revenue nor were they party to the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 22-5-1984 challenged in the High Court.
Consequently, they were rightly excluded from consideration by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The case of Muhammad Fazil respondent No,6 was considered by the learned Member, Board of Revenue who did not find him fit for appointment, resulting in the appointment of the petitioner as a Lamberdar by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 24-7-1990.
This order was not liable to be interfered with on the writ petitions of Muhammad Maroof and Muhammad Ashraf respondents Nos.4 and 5. Learned counsel relied on "Ghulam Rasool v.
Settlement Commissioner 1980 SCM R 921 and a decision in Civil Petition No,889 of 1980 "Muhammad Ali v. Additional Settlement Commissioner and 2 others", decided on 18-11-1987.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that since the order of remand passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 22-5-1984 was earlier upheld and case remanded to the CollectOr by the learned Judge of the High Court vide order, dated 12-2-1985, it was open to the Collector to consider the case of all the respondents and the learned Member, Board of Revenue fell in error in not considering the case of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their assistance it is crystal clear that against the appointment of the petitioner as a Lamberdar by the Collector vide order, dated 27-7-1981, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed appeals which were dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide order, dated 28-2-1982. Respondents Nos.5 and 6 did not challenge the order any further. In other words, they accepted the order and went out of the arena. Consequently the revisional order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 22-5-1984 remanding the case which was upheld by the learned Judge of the High Court vide order, dated 12-2-1985 would not confer any right on the respondents Nos.5 and 6 to re-enter the ring after their exit by the order of the Commissioner, dated 28-2-1982 against which they had not protested. Therefore, the learned Member, Board of Revenue was quite right in confining the controversy to the contestants and appointing the petitioner as a Lamberdar vide his order, dated 24-7-1990. It may be recapitulated that the petitioner was appointed Lamberdar in the first instance by the Collector vide order, dated 27-7-1981. After the vicissitude of prolonged litigation he has finally been appointed as a Lamberdar by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 24-7-1990.
In the circumstances we do not think that there was sufficient justification to interfere in the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Therefore, we convert these petitions into appeals and allow the same setting aside the impugned order of the learned High Court and restoring that of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 24-7-1990.
Cited by 1 case
- LASHKAR ALI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE 1995 PLD 512