GHULAM RASUL vs MAHMOOD AHMAD and 42 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the Minister for Consolidation possessed the jurisdiction to interfere with a consolidation scheme sanctioned under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, and whether the Additional Commissioner could lawfully act upon such ministerial directions to set aside a scheme. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Minister for Consolidation lacked the jurisdiction to interfere with the consolidation scheme. The Court held that the proceedings initiated by the Additional Commissioner, which were based solely on the Minister's unauthorized directions, were void and unsustainable in law. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities exercising powers under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, must act within their statutory mandate and cannot be directed by political functionaries to interfere with quasi-judicial or administrative schemes, rendering any such directed actions legally void.
- Does the Minister for Consolidation have the jurisdiction to interfere with a consolidation scheme sanctioned under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
- Are proceedings taken by an Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) pursuant to unauthorized directions from a Minister legally sustainable?
- Can a consolidation scheme be set aside by an Additional Commissioner based on a directive from the Minister for Consolidation?
- Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 24-11-1990 whereby the Writ Petition No, 4050/90 filed by the petitioner's side challenging the order dated 19-9-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on review and order dated -17-4-1990 of the Member, Board of Revenue dismissing revision against the said order of the Additional Commissioner was allowed.
2. The brief facts are that consolidation scheme of village Fatowal Sulehrian was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Sialkot, on 28-9-1986. Only six out of 771 land owners filed appeals before the Collector (Consolidation). The appeals were still pending when respondent No, 1 made an application before the Minister for Consolidation for setting aside, the whole scheme. The Minister directed the Additional Commissioner to review the scheme in pursuance whereof he set aside the scheme vide order dated 19-9-1989 referred to above. This order was challenged before the Member, Board of Revenue by filing a revision petition which was dismissed on 17-4-1990. Reyling on Ahmad Khan's case (PLD 1990 SC 1070) the learned Single Judge held that the Minister for consolidation had no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the scheme sanctioned by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960.
' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the petition it has been stated that the Supreme Court authority cited by the learned Judge "had no application to the facts of the instant case, because there was no material before the learned High Court Judge to show that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was ever directed by the Minister concerned to pass any order one way or the other".
3. The contention is devoid of force. The very order of the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation contains a reference to the directions issued by the Minister for Consolidation. The learned Judge rightly held that the proceedings taken by the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation in pursuance of the order of the Minister were wholly void and unsustainable. There is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- BASHIR AHMAD And Other vs BEGGA K.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 234
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus HAFIZ GHULAM RASOOL 1992 MLD 1566