Mst. Amtari Jana Vs Naqeeb Ullah etc

JUDGIVIENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

BANNU BENCH

(Judicial Department)

W.P No.392-Bl2024.

Mst. Amtari Jana (petitioner)

Versus.

Naqeeb Ullah Khan & others (Respondents) Present:

Mr. Sardar Naeem Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan for petitioner.

Mr. Fazal-e-Hadi, Advocate for the respondents.

Date of hearing:. 04.5.2026.

JUDGMENT

**ri**********

SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J. Through the instant constitutional petition instituted under Article 199 ofthe Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, ( the petitioner has called in question the legality, propriety and validity of the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the leamed Additional Commissioner, Bannu Division, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as well as the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Member-III, Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, whereby the former order was maintained.

2.Briefly stated, the controversy emanates liom partition proceedings relating to landed property amongst the parties. The matter travelled through different revenue tbrums and ultimately reached the learned Additional Cornmissioner, Bannu Division, who, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, reversed the findings concurrently recorded by the subordinate revenue authorities through order dated 29.12.2021.

The said order was thereafter upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, vide order dated 26.04.2024. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

3.Leamed counsel lbr the petitioner contended that the impugned revisional order is wholly non-speaking, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial adjudication. It was argued that the learned Additional Commissioner merely reproduced the factual background and submissions of the parties without discussing the evidence, framing points for deterrnination. recording findings or assigning reasons for upsetting the concurrent hndings of the subordinate fora. Leamed counsel further submitted that the leamed Member, Board of Revenue, (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan

instead of rectifying the patent illegality, mechanically affirmed the defective order without independent judicial scrutiny.

4.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders and contended that the revisional authority was competent to interfere with the findings of subordinate revenue authorities.

5.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have gone through the available record with their able assistance.

6.The pivotal question requiring determination in the instant matter is whether the order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the leamed Additional Commissioner fulfils the legal requirement of a speaking and reasoned order and whether the learned Member, Board of Revenue, lawfully exercised supervisory jurisdiction while maintaining the same.

,T

7.Perusal ofthe impugned revisional order reveals that the leamed Additional Commissioner has elaborately reproduced the factual background and arguments advanced by the parties. The order consists of sixteen pages, out of which almost fifteen pages (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan

merely contain narration of f'acts and reproduction of rival submissions. However, after such lengthy reproduction, the learned forum abruptly concluded the matter in a short concluding paragraph by merely observing that the revision petition stood accepted. No independent reasoning has been recorded. No point for determination was framed. No discussion regarding evidence available on record was undertaken. No defect in the findings of the subordinate fora was identified.

No legal infirmity was pointed out warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The order is conspicuously silent as to on what point of fact or law the leamed Additional Commissioner found the revision petition to be meritorious.

8.Such mode of ad.judication cannot be approved in the eye of law. A judicial or quasi-judicial authority is not expected merely to reproduce pleadings and ( arguments of the parties and thereafter record an unexplained conclusion. The essence of judicial determination lies not in narration of facts but in application of judicial mind. Every adjudicating authority is under legal obligation to formulate points requiring determination, appreciate the evidence, (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan

examine the legality of the impugned action, apply the relevant law and thereafter record clear, cogent and lawful reasons in support of the conclusion reached 9 . It is now a firmly settled principle of jurisprudence that reasons are the soul of a judicial order. They constitute the heartbeat of judicial determination and reflect conscious application of mind by the adjudicating authority. Recording of reasons ensures transparency 1n decision-making, excludes arbitrariness, promotes fairness and enables superior courts to effectively examine the legality and propriety ofthe order impugned before them. Absence ofreasons renders the order arbitrary, capricious and unsustainable.

10.A judicial order cannot be sustained merely on account ofthe authority ofthe person who passed it. The order must speak for itself. It must disclose through its ( reasoning process that the adjudicating forum has independently examined the controversy, sifted the grain from the chaff, appreciated the material available on record and arrived at a lawful conclusion after due application of mind. Where findings are reversed, particularly concurrent findings recorded by (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan

subordinate fora, the revisional authority is under greater obligation to disclose compelling reasons demonstrating illegality, perversity, jurisdictional defect or material irregularity in the impugned findings.

11 . In the present case, the leamed Additional Commissioner completely failed to discharge the obligation cast upon him by law. The impugned order neither discusses the evidence nor points out any misreading or non-reading of material available on record. It does not identiff any jurisdictional defect committed by the subordinate authorities. It does not disclose which principle of law was violated by the subordinate fora. Most importantly, it does not contain any independent finding explaining why the revision petition deserved acceptance. The order merely reproduces facts and arguments and culminates into a cryptic conclusion unsupported by reasons.

( 12. Such adjudication is wholly alien to settled judicial standards. The exercise of judicial power necessarily requires disclosure ofthe reasoning process through which the adjudicating authority travelled from the facts to the conclusion. Failure to disclose such reasoning renders the order legally rulnerable and (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan.

constitutionally unsustainable. An order unsupported by reasons amounts to denial of justice because the affected party remains unaware as to why his rights have been defeated and the superior courts are deprived of meaningful opportuniry to examine the correctness of the decision.

13.Reliance in this regard may advantageously be placed on the case titled Muhammad Ameer and others Vs. MsL Fajjm ond others (2012 CLC 1663), wherein it was held that every judicial and quasi-judicial order must be a speaking order reflecting consclous application ofjudicial mind. Likewise, in Mst. Farhat Naseem Vs, District Petrol Pump Committee through Chairman and another (2025 yLR 263), it was observed that public authorities while deciding rights of parties are under legal obligation to assign lawful and cogent reasons after proper consideration of all relevant aspects of the controversy.

14.Reference may further be made to the celebrated judgments rendered by the august Supreme Court ot Pakistan in Molloh Ejahar Ali Vs. Governmenl of Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 173), Gourunga Mohan Sikdar Vs. Controller of Imporls and Exports (PLD (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan.

1970 SC 158), M* Clare Benedicta Convillie and others Vs, Mst. Sabahat Idrees and others (2009 SCMR 851), wherein the august Supreme Court consistently emphasized that recording of reasons is indispensable for lawful exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial authority.

I 5. It may also be observed that revenue officers while adjudicating disputes relating to partition, inheritance, mutation and possession do not act merely as executive functionaries. While determining civil rights of parties, they perform quasi-judicial functions and are therefore bound bv the same standards of fairness, legality and reasoned adjudication which govern courts and tribunals. The higher the forum, the greater is the responsibility attached to the office.

Revisional jurisdiction, tn particular, cannot be exercised casually or mechanically. A revisional authority is not expected to substitute its own ,/ conclusion for that of subordinate fora unless patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional defect or material irregularity is identified through lawful reasoning.

16.Equally disturbing is the manner in which the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dealt with the (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan

controversy. The Board of Revenue occupies the apex position in the provincial revenue hierarchy and is expected to ensure legality, regularity and propriety in proceedings conducted by subordinate revenue authorities. The learned Member was dutv bound to independently examine whether the leamed Additional Commissioner had lawfully exercised revisional jurisdiction, whether proper findings were recorded and whether the order satisfied the requirements of a speaking order. However, instead of rectiffing the patent illegality apparent on the face of the record, the learned Member mechanically upheld the impugned revisional order, thereby perpetuating illegality and miscarriage of justice.

l'1 . The orders impugned before this Court manifest complete disregard of settled principles laid down repeatedly by the superior courts. Judicial discretion ( cannot be exercised on whims, conjectures or unexplained conclusions. Law mandates reasoned adjudication because reasons alone demonstrate faimess, transparency and application of judicial mind.

An order devoid ofreasons is no order in the eye of law.

(S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan.

18.For what has been discussed above. this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the leamed Additional Commissioner, Bannu Division, as well as the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the leamed Member-III, Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, are wholly unsustainable in law, having been passed without lawful exerclse of jurisdiction and without independent application of judicial mind.

18.Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bannu Division, and the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the leamed Member- ilI Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the leamed Additional Commissioner, Bannu Division, who shall decide the revision petition afresh strictly in accordance with law after framing proper points for determination, ( examining the entire record independently, evaluating the findings of subordinate fora, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties and passing a comprehensive speaking order supported by clear (S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan

judgment of today placed on B.A. No, 99-8/2025 (Muhammad Sher Vs The State etc), the tnstarfi findings and cogent reasons reflecting independent bail cancellation application, 1,€, No.10- application of judicial mind.

8,12025 is hereby dismissed nlbninie.

19.The leamed lbrum shall conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 07.01.202s. three months fiom the receipt of copy of this judgment. 'Inrdnulldh PS'

An nou nced.

(S,B) Hon'ble Mi lastlcc04.5.2026 Abdal Fayaz lhsan ,"w -Sd- Judge

c)

(S.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabit Ullah Khan.