MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 7 others vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB LAHORE and 5 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded a land consolidation dispute back to the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the High Court, upon finding a review order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue to be without lawful authority, could restrict the remand to a specific, limited issue while leaving the underlying revisional order intact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order effectively reopened the entire revisional jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue. The Court reasoned that the Member, Board of Revenue could not exercise jurisdiction on a limited point without the revisional order being set aside. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed that the Member, Board of Revenue must decide the entire revision petition afresh rather than restricting the scope to the limited point initially directed by the High Court. This establishes the principle that a remand order which invalidates a review decision necessarily requires the re-adjudication of the original revision petition in its entirety to ensure proper exercise of jurisdiction.
- Can a High Court remand a case to the Member, Board of Revenue on a limited point without setting aside the underlying revisional order?
- Does a remand order that invalidates a review decision effectively reopen the entire revisional jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue?
- Is it legally permissible for the Member, Board of Revenue to exercise jurisdiction on a limited point while the original revisional order remains in effect?
- Section 10(3), Consolidation of Holding Ordinance 1960
' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 21-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No, 3793 of 1985, of the respondents was allowed.
2 Resume of the case is that consolidation of village Gandhowalafehsil Ferozewala District Sheikhupura was confirmed by the Consolidation. Officer, Ferozewala vide his order, dated 30-6- 1980 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960. Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 filed an appeal before the Collector District, Sheikhupura which was accepted vide his order, dated 14-2-1983 and land comprising Killa Nos.21 and 22 of Square No, 22 was restored in their favour.
Feelin& aggrieved, by the said order the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide his order, dated 4-6-1983 observing that the appellants therein should have filed appeal before the Collector of Consolidation, as such, the petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, who recommended action in suo motu jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner, whereafter the Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal being incompetent and unmaintainable vide his order, dated 22-7-1984.
3. The petitioners called in question the validity of the above orders by filing a revision petition which was dismissed by the Member, Board of Itcvenue vide his order, dated 23-1-1985 against which reviewwas sought through a review petition which was allowed by the Member Board of Revenue vide his order, dated 22-5-1985 and land comprising Square No,22, Killa Nos.21 and 22 was restored to them.
4. Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 challenged the order of the Member Board of Revenue through Writ Petition No, 3793 of 1985 which was accepted by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 21-10-1999, impugned herein holding as under:--- "7. The grievance of the learned counsel for the respondents appears to be justified to this extent that the other main contention in the revision petition was that the entitlement of respondents Nos.
2 to 9 was reduced. This grievance of respondents Nos. 2 to 9 was not adjudicated by the learned M.B.R. While deciding the revision petition or the review petition.
8. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the order, dated 22-5-1985 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is declared as without lawful authority and the case is remanded to the learned M.B.R. (Consolidation) only to consider the grievance of respondents Nos.
2 to 9 that their entitlement was reduced. The learned Member, Board of Revenue will pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. No order as to costs."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned High Court as well as the Additional Commissioner and Collector have not considered the case of the petitioners in its true perspective and the material on record was misread. He further submitted that land bearing Square No, 22 Killa Nos.21 and 22 originally belonged to the petitioners and is contiguous to the petitioners land, as such it was illegally and unjustifiably proposed on the Khata of the respondents but this aspect of the case was not considered by the learned High Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case.
The learned High Court has declared the order, dated 22-5-1985 passed in review petition of the petitioners to be without lawful authority and remanded the case to the Member Board of Revenue to consider their grievance regarding their entitlement. It may be noted that the learned High Court after declaring the review order to be without lawful authority and remanding the case to Member Board of Revenue on limited point for fresh order virtually set aside the revisional order of the Member Board of Revenue, as without setting aside the revisional order, the Member Board of Revenue cannot exercise jurisdiction under any authority. Since the learned High Court by remanding the case has reopened the revisional jurisdiction of the Member Board of Revenue, therefore. Member Board of Revenue shall decide the revision petition afresh instead of limited point as directed by the learned High Court.
' With this observation, this petition is dismissed and leaverefused.