1. ' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHL, J.--- This petitioner has called in question, judgment, dated 10th July, 2000, passed by Full Board of Revenue in Review No.29 of 1997.
2. ' Facts of the case, in brief, are that a piece of land situated in Mauza Kund Tehsil Hub, District Lasbella, measuring 1700 acres, was transferred to respondents Nos.4 to 32, on their application, at the rate of Rs.250 per acre, vide order, dated 20th February, 1992. Said order shows that the land was sold to the inhabitants of Mauza Kund on the recommendations, made by Deputy Commissioner, Lasbella and Commissioner, Kalat Division, and; distribution was to be made by the then Member, National Assembly Mr. Bizan Bizenjo. The order, whereby; transfer had taken place, is reproduced as under:-- "Board of Revenue Balochistan dated Quetta the 20th February, 1992
3. ' No.223-8/83-Rev. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him vide Notification No.490-8/86-Rev: dated 15th March, 1988 and in partial modification of this Board's Order of even number dated 8th February, 1992, the Member-II, Board of Revenue, Balochistan is pleased to transfer Government land measuring 1700-0-0 acres situated in Mouza Kund, Tehsil Hub, District Lasbella in favour of the inhabitants of Mouza Kund at the rate of Rs.250 per acre as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Lasbella and Commissioner, Kalat Division. The distribution of the land in question will be made with the association of Mr. Bizan Bizenjo, M.N.A. (Sd. Khudaidad Khan), Member-II, Board of Revenue, Balochistan." Record shows that in pursuance of said order, entries in the names of private respondents were made in Revenue Record, vide Mutation No.709 dated 22nd September, 1992. Record further shows that vide Mutation No.721, land measuring 291 acres 3 rod, 4 pole, was sold to petitioner for a consideration of Rs.46,97,577 at the rate of Rs.16,000 per acre. So, entries in the Revenue Record were made in favour of petitioner, vide order, dated 20th October, 1992, after about twenty-eight days of entries, made in Revenue Record, in favour of private respondents. Record shows that vide order dated 28th February, 1993, said entries were directed to be rescinded by Board of Revenue and entry in this regard, was made by Revenue staff, copy whereof is available on record.
4. ' It is to mention here that a meeting was statedly chaired by Chief Minister, Balochistan and in pursuance to the minutes/decision in the said meeting, all allotments/transfers of State lands ,made after 28th October, 1991, were decided to be cancelled, and thus; on 23rd July, 1992 Board of Revenue, Balochistan forwarded minutes of meeting, to all Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners/Political Agents in Balochistan. It is also noted that subsequently in October, 1993, an Ordinance in the name of "The Balochistan Cancellation of Illegal Allotments of State Land Ordinance, 1993" was promulgated, and; by virtue of section 3 of said Ordinance, all the allotments made during the period between 15th March, 1988 and 18th August, 1993 (both days inclusive), were declared to be cancelled. Subsequently, said Ordinance was tabled before Balochistan Provincial Assembly and, thus; an Act was promulgated i.e. Balochistan Cancellation of Illegal Allotments of State Land Act, 1996 (Balochistan Act No.V of 1996), wherein; also the period within which allotments were made and directed to be cancelled, remained the same, as was in Ordinance.
5. ' Respondents Nos.4 to 32 filed revision petition before Member-III, Board of Revenue Balochistan on 8th January, 1997, after a period of five years, however, they had not disclosed the fact that they had sold the property. It was stated and prayed that the said piece of land be restored in their favour as being "occupancy tenants". Following prayer was made in the revision petition:-- "In view of the above submissions it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that case of the petitioners for the lands mentioned in foregoing paras be restored as occupancy tenants. The petitioners are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions of the allotment."
6. ' Learned Member-III, Board of Revenue Balochistan, vide order, dated 28th January, 1997, granted relief and came to the conclusion that the said allotment orders are not covered within the ambit of "cancellation, as no justification exists". Observations recorded by learned Member-III, are also reproduced hereinbelow:- "(4) After going through the record placed in the file, I am of the view that such following mutations serial Nos.704, 705, 707, 709, 710 lands based on the subject allotment order are not within the ambit of cancellation as no justification exists for cancellation at will. Prayer of the petitioners is accepted.
7. ' The entries in the Record of Rights in favour of petitioners be restored accordingly."
8. ' Against the aforementioned order, a Review Petition, was filed by Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner, District Lasbella, on 28th June, 1992 within the purview of section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, along with application under section 5 of Limitation Act. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application for impleading them as party to the proceedings on the ground that the property was purchased by petitioner. Record shows that mutation entries were cancelled by the Revenue staff in pursuance to the directions made earlier, vide order, dated 28th February, 1992. The Full Board of Board of Revenue had already condoned delay vide order, dated 12th July, 1997, and; after providing opportunity of being heard, the learned Board unanimously vide judgment, dated 10th July, 2000, directed to set aside order, dated 28th January, 1997, passed by Member-III, Board of Revenue, Balochistan. Learned Full Board came to the conclusion that the submission made by respondents before Board of Revenue, were dealt with; (i) that they are not in peaceful possession and occupation of the land; (ii) Member-Ill, Board of Revenue had passed the order, without calling for the record and examining the same; (iii) respondents are neither legal allottees nor had remained tenants of Government lands. There is nothing on record with regard to leasing out of the land and thus, occupancy tenancy does not exist at all; (iv) the Member-III, Board of Revenue had no authority under law to set aside orders of cancellation, passed by Chief Minister, Balochistan and proper forum was High Court, as such, order of restoration passed by Member-III, Board of Revenue was without lawful authority and jurisdiction; (v) respondents Nos.43 to 88 had not challenged cancellation of Mutation Entry No.707, dated 22nd September, 1992, which related to 96 acres of land, but Member-III, Board of Revenue set aside the same and restored in their favour; (vi) Khasra Nos.167, 482 and 488 measuring 133 acres, 3 rod and 18 pole, were never recommended by the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner, Kalat, nor the same were allotted by the Board of Revenue and have been transferred in the name of intervener; disciplinary action was directed against "Girdawar" and "Patwari", and the order passed by Member-HI, was ordered to be set aside. Learned Board had taken note of Assistant District Attorney, who had not sought time for filing of parawise, comments and had participated in the proceedings. It was also observed that the petitioner purchased at rate of Rs.16,000 per acre after lapse of twenty-eight days of purchase from Government of Balochistan at the rate of Rs.250 per acre, appears to be shaky transaction and selection of project on the said area, arrangement of huge amount within twenty-eight days would appear to be not bona fide transaction. It was observed by the Board, concerning to intervener to take action against the concerned official, who is responsible in causing loss to the Government and petitioner. It was also suggested that the intervener may approach Government of Balochistan in order to get proper allotment of said land.
9. ' Against the aforementioned judgment, petition was preferred before this Court, which was admitted for regular hearing. Notice of the petition was given to the Member, Board of Revenue, as well as Advocate-General.
10. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti learned counsel for petitioner, while official respondents were represented by Mr. Aminud-Din Bazai, learned Additional Advocate-General, Mirza, Hussain Khan, Advocate, appeared for private respondents.
11. 'Learned counsel for petitioner stated that Board of Revenue did not have jurisdiction under West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 to review and order passed by the Single Member; (ii) it was further stated that revision was filed and it could not be termed as review. Learned counsel has criticised decision of Full Board, who had carried out the policy decision of Chief Minister, arrived at.
12. It was also averred that formal cancellation order was required to be issued. Learned counsel has also challenged that the order of cancellation did not fall within the ambit of Ordinance-V of 1993 and Act V of 1996, as also under provisions of Land Lease Policy, 1998, which were not attracted to the transfer of land, made by the Board. It was also canvassed that the learned Full Board had no jurisdiction to review the order on application, which was a revision petition and also the same was barred by time. The cancellation of mutation entries, which existed in favour of petitioner, were also challenged.
13. ' On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that action was taken after the retirement of Member-III, Board of Revenue, who had passed orders of restoration, without proper notice and examination of record. It was also slated that the petition filed before the Member-III, Board of Revenue, was not entertainable, as no appeal was filed. The other limb of the argument was that the said revision petition was barred by limitation of five years, and; no application for condonation of delay was placed on record. He made allegations that the transaction between petitioner and that of private respondents was also illegal and shaky; it has been stated that the land after purchase at the rate of Rs.250 per acre, immediately was transferred to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.16,000 per acre within twenty eight days, everything was settled. It was also canvassed that Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan had no lawful authority to direct that the order of transfer of land did not fall within the ambit of decision of cancellation passed by Chief Minister. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents had also supported arguments advanced by petitioner's counsel: ' We have heard arguments of parties' counsel and carefully examined record of the case. It is to note that by virtue of Ordinance-V of 1993, all the transactions made during 15th March, 1988 and 18th August, 1993 (both days inclusive), were directed to be cancelled and the said Ordinance was thereafter made an Act (Balochistan Act No.V of 1996) by Balochistan Provincial Assembly.
14. However, period within which allotments were made and were decided to be cancelled, remained the same.
15. ' In order to deal with the points raised by counsel for petitioner that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to deal with the matters; exercise of authority has been made within the provisions of section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. For reference, section 8 of the Act is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "8. Review of order by the Board.--- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him may apply to the Board for a review of judgment and the Board may after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them pass such decree or other as the circumstances of the case require.
(2) Every application for a review of a decree or order under subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order.
16. ' Above provision of law clearly authorises Board of Revenue to exercise right of review in respect of any order, discovery of new and important matter or mistake of error on the face of record. The said order was challenged by the Government of Balochistan, when they came to know that Member-III, Board of Revenue had not properly exercised the authority, after lapse of five years. The Board also observed that the order impugned, was not legal and was without authority and jurisdiction. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Munawar Kashan and another v.
17. Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Revenue, Balochistan Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others 2000 MLD 2015 while interpreting provisions of section 8 of the Act XI of 1957, was pleased to observe as under:-- "... It may not be out of place to mention here that admittedly the powers of review are not available under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967) but is available under Act XI of 1957. Words 'for any other sufficient reason' are capable enough to meet all sorts of such eventualities as employed in section 8 of Act XI of 1957. To be read ejusdem generis with words preceding same and laying down grounds for interference in review. We are conscious of the fact that every cause would not allow to press the review in service but where sufficient reasons are available such review can be made. In this regard reference can be made to PLD 1979 Note 82 at p.57. It hardly needs any elaboration and as mentioned hereinabove that expression "for any other sufficient reason" appearing in section 8 is capable enough to re-empower Board of Revenue to rectify the errors committed in a revision order 1989 MLD 2876."
18. ' Thus, argument raised in this behalf by the learned counsel for petitioner may not be found to be correct and following me above dictum, made by this Court, the objection raised by learned counsel for petitioner, is repelled.
19. ' Second question for consideration is as to whether section 5 of Limitation Act being not applicable under the Land Revenue Act, the application for condonation of delay was misconceived. Suffice to state here that learned Member, Board of Revenue had condoned limitation by means of order, dated 12th July, 1997, said order was not challenged in the prayer clause of petition, and; the learned Full Board of Revenue found that the order impugned before them, was void and was made capriciously and thus; had condoned delay. The Honourable Supreme Court has also observed in the case i.e. Sardar Ahmed Yar Khan Jogezai and 2 others v. Province of Balochistan 2002 SCMR 122, that in case, if the order is passed and the exercises of jurisdiction were made in the manner, which is against the provisions of law or had exceeded authority, prescribed by law, the question of limitation loses its significance. Relevant observations are reproduced as under:-- "(7) Admittedly the appeals were filed with a delay of 45 days but in view of the chequered history of the case and order of the executing Court which is not only coram non judice but nullity in the eyes of law and thus, the delay has rightly been condoned because under the garb of limitation blanket authority cannot be given to executing Courts to modify the decrees passed by the Appellate Courts which would not only be contemptuous but amounts to misconduct."
20. ' Pivotal question involves in this case, is as to whether, Member, Board of Revenue had the authority to transfer the Government land at the rate of Rs.250 per acre, on the recommendations of Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of respective Divisions. The provision of Land Lease Policy is the .,only law, which applies to Province of Balochistan. Learned counsel was confronted with the said position, as also observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases i.e. Constitutional Petitions Nos.6 to 9 of 1994, titled Nawabzada Jahangir Shah Jogezai and others v.
21. Province of Balochistan and others decided on 2nd November, 1998. Learned counsel contended that the provision of Land Lease Policy, do not apply and the initial transaction was made by Board of Revenue under the Land Revenue Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioner had failed to point out any provision of law, which infused the powers to the Board of Revenue to transfer land.
22. Relevant observations in above noted Constitutional petition, decided by the Honourable Supreme Court are reproduced as under:-- "(17) Prima facie the above order of transferring the ownership rights could not have been made under the above scheme. The Chief Minister had no power to grant ownership by bypassing the above Scheme, under which the ban on allotment of State land was lifted."
23. ' The observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case, referred to above 2000 MLD 2015 (Quetta) are also reproduced as under:-- "... The land Mafia cannot be allowed to grab huge parcel of lands worth whereof runs into billions on the basis of hypertechnical suppositions and twisting the law. The illegal and unlawful title cannot be converted into a lawful title while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as the Court has not been approached with clean hands and accordingly the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed."
24. ' Learned counsel for petitioner had admitted before us, that he has not challenged the vires of Balochistan Cancellation of Allotments of Lands Ordinance, 1993, however, he was of the view that said provision, would not apply, as the Chief Minister had taken action in the terms of policy decision. Learned counsel has not been able to support his contentions by any law, that Ordinance V of 1993 and Act VI of 1996 do not apply on the facts and circumstances of present case and is entitled to said land legally, and; time and again agitated that Fauji Foundation is an organization established by the Finance Ministry, who had wanted to establish a "power project" over the land. It was also stated by learned counsel that petitioner had purchased 491-2-9 acres of land for establishing of said project.
25. ' Learned counsel for respondents were of the view that the petition is not maintainable as the Member-III, Board of Revenue has seriously erred in restoring the property on the ground, which was alien in law. It was also argued that prayer clause in the revision petition related to occupancy tenant, while they were not occupying the said land and according to petitioner, they had already purchased the same. Learned Additional Advocate-General was of the view that the transfer was made under the garb of provisions of Land Lease Policy dated 15th March, 1998, as indicative from the order, reproduced hereinabove. He was of the view that Balochistan Land Lease policy cannot be applied for transfer of land; in the present case, as the conditions of grant of lease and eligibility for transfer of lands, were not available to the private respondents. The revision petition, so filed, indicates that petitioner only claimed status of "occupancy tenant", while the order of restoration of transfer of land has been made. The petitioner, thus, cannot be allowed to retain ill-gotten gains.
26. Even provisions of Land Lease Policy, were not followed at the time of transfer. The transfer made originally in favour of respondents, was also void having been made without backing of law.
27. ' There is yet another aspect that the Member, Board of Revenue could have leased out lands initially without determination of tenancy and having advertised in newspapers, publicly, he had no jurisdiction to transfer/sell the Government land in such-like manner. Moreover, transaction had taken place within twenty-eight days, appears to be collusive and shaky, as observed by the Full Board. Petitioner thus, has not approached the Court with clean hands and cannot be granted relief, as prayed for.
28. ' The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case referred above i.e. Nawabzada Jahangir Shah Jogezai and others v. Province of Balochistan and others, has held in the following terms:-- "19. That in view of the above factual and legal position, we are not inclined to go into the question of vires of the impugned Ordinance. Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar has referred to a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252 in which the Indian Supreme Court has held that Bihar Land Reforms Act was ultra vires of the Indian Constitution for want of providing compensation for acquiring the land and lack of public purpose.
29. The above case has no application. The instant case involves the cancellation of the transfers/allotments which were not competently made outside the Scheme notified through the aforesaid Gazette dated 16-3-1988 by the Balochistan Government. The above cases are not fit for invoking constitutional jurisdiction in terms of the above judgments referred to hereinabove in para. No.14. Besides the above referred judgments, reference may also be made to the case of Salahuddin Khan and 10 others v. Member, Board of Revenue III and 18 others PLD 1985 Quetta 192 in which it has been held by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan that as the order granting sale of land to private persons by Revenue Authority was without jurisdiction, the High Court while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction would not perpetuate an order which might be without jurisdiction in absence of good reasons. We may also refer to another judgment of a Division Bench of the same High Court in Bakhtiar and 3 others v. Member-III, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and 20 others PLD 1984 Quetta 158 in which it was held that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked in aid of justice and not to help retention of ill-gotten gains."
30. ' For the reasons stated above, petition is accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.