MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABHIR, J.-- Briefly the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner is owner of 326 Kanals, 17 Marlas of land in village Saidpur Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara, being a female and permanent resident of City, Lahore not in a position to manage and control her land. She leased the land through an agreement to Muhammad Ishtiaq, respondent No. 2 for a period of five years w.e.f. Kharif 1993 to Rabi 1998 at the rate, of Rs. 45,000/- per year as lease money, in this respect a mutation of lease on the revenue record on 4.1.1993 had been entered.
2. On 5.9.1995 the Circle Patwari named Muhammad Ali had entered a false entry at serial No. 5 in register Roznamcha Waqiati showing G.F. Gabriel being attorney of the petitioner, who appeared before him stated that he has sold the land measuring 126 Kanals, 19 Marlas for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- to four persons Muhammad Ishtiaq, Kamal Din, Muhammad Ismail and Mst. Sikana, wife of Muhammad Ali on the basis of Roziancha Waqiati Mutation No. 251 has been entered/sanctioned on 28.11.1996. While it will not be out of place mentioned here that attorney of the petitioner had died on 21.11.1996 earlier than the attestation of mutation.
2A. The respondent No. 2, Muhammad Ishtiaq has made an exchange of 200 Kanals of land through a forged exchange deed dated 25.9.1995 with a plot of one Kanal situated in Chak No. 2/4- L, Cooperative Housing Society, Okara. The exchange deed has also been entered in report Roznamcha Waqiati No. 44, dated 1.10.1996 and in this contest a Mutation No. 271 had also been attested on 2.10.1996. Soon after this illegal attestation of the. Mutation one Mst. Najma a co-sharer in the property and Mauza Saidpur made a complaint to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), who called for a report from the field staff. The Consolidation Officer solicited permission to review the mutation because these were attested in absence of the owner of the land, in agreeing with the repot of the Consolidation Officer, the Collector Consolidation accorded the permission this order was challenged by respondent No. 2, in revision before Addl.
Commissioner, Lahore, but Inter on made a statement to the effect that he does not want to the review petition which was consigned to the record vide order dated 29.10.1997.
3. The petitioner when come to know of the illegal transactions made by respondent No. 2 got registered a criminal case F.I.R. No. 188/1997 against the respondents Nos. 2 and 9 others under sections 420, 468, 471 and 467. PPC read with Section 5(2) of P.C.A, at P.S. Hujra Shah Muqeem, Okara. Respondent No. 2 and 3 others the beneficiary had filed W.P. No. 16423 of 1998 for the quashment of the above F.I.R, which was dismissed by this Court on 23.2.1,998. This case was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore it was found that through Mutation No. 251, Muhammad Ali, Patwari a co-accused transferred the land in favour of his wife Mst. Sikana, Muhammad Ismail, brother of Mst. Sikana Bibi, Muhammad Ishtiaq and Kamal Din. The learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption convicted the accused persons. The conviction was challenged before the High Court Lahore, through an appeal, which was also dismissed on 16.4.2001. The criminal petitions for leave to appeal Nos. 121/2001, 134/2001, 174/2001 and 175/2001 were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. As the village was under consolidation operation, thus the petitioner made an application to the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue for implementation of the order of, the Special Judge Anti Corruption, who directed the petitioner to appear before the Addl. Commissioner Consolidation and the petitioner in compliance with the direction of the Board filed a revision petition before the Addl. Commissioner, who directed the petitioner to file appeal before the Collector. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order of the Addl Commissioner file two review petitions before the Member Board of Revenue which had been accepted vide order dated 22.3.2003 by the Member Board of Revenue.
5. That respondent No. 2 filed two review applications before Member Board of Revenue Review Petitions Nos. 104/2003 and 105/2003 before the Member Board of Revenue, later on these were withdrawn by the respondent, thereafter the respondent No. 2 by concealing the fact that his review petitions had already been dismissed as withdrawn filed two fresh review petitions Nos.
153/2003 and 154/2003 which were accepted by the Member Board of Revenue vide his impugned order dated 31.5.2003. This order has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is established on record that the respondent No. 2 alongwith other his companions including Patwari Halqa, Muhammad Ali was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for illegally and fraudulently transferring the land of the petitioner in favour of Mst. Sikana Bibi, Muhammad Ismail, brother of her wife, Muhammad Ishtiaq, respondent No. 2 and Kamal Din, the conviction had been maintained upto the Apex Court, the Member Board of Revenue has observed that the Collector has allowed review of the Mutations Nos. 251 and 271 vide his order dated 19.2.1997 observing that it was result of fraud and misrepresentation in collusion with the filed staff.
8. Under the direction of the Member Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed a review petition before the Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, who advised the petitioner to move to the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/the Collector by filing a regular appeal against the said mutation and in compliance with the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, who directed to review the said mutations but the order of the Collector was set aside by the Addl.
Commissioner and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for declaring the Mutations No. 251 and 271 attested in favour of the respondent No. 2 and others, as a result of fraud and mis- representation as presumption of truth attached to the judicial verdict which has already attained finality, therefore, in such circumstances the Addl. Commissioner was not competent to direct the petitioner to approach the Civil. Court, it was incumbent on the beneficiary of the mutation to get determine the legality and validity of these mutations, in view of the observation of the Criminal Court, it was the legal function of the hierarchy to review the mutation. There was no denial to the judgment of the Trial Court as well as superior Courts, thus Member Board of Revenue has rightly set aside the order of Addl. Commissioner vide his order dated 22.3.2003.
9. The petitioner has once withdrawn his earlier Review Petitions Nos. 104 and 105/2003 on the ground that he has stated before the Member Board of Revenue that he has filed a declaratory suit before the Civil Court, Depalpur for redressal of the grievance. By concealing the fact of dismissal of his earlier review petitions the respondent No. 2, filed subsequent Review Petitions Nos. 153 and 154 of 2003, the subsequent review petitions were incompetent and all these grounds for review were available to the petitioner at the the of withdrawal of his review petitions, there is no provision-of law in the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and card cf Revenue Act for a second review, but also this is fact that there is no bar or restraint in the above-referred Act for filing a subsequent review petition before the same authority.
10. The second review application has been barred by Rule 9, CKder.47, CPC which reads as under:- Bar of Applications
(1) No application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.
(2) Nothing in this order shall apply to any judgment pronounced or made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The said legal objection has dealt with in case of Muhammad Shafi vs. The Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue and 2 others (1995 CLC 966). The Hob'ble Judge of this Court observed that after dismissal of first review application, second application on the same grounds and against the same order could neither be entertained nor adjudicated. Although there was no express prohibition for second review in West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, yet the Act did not either expressly or impliedly exclude general principal res judicata and rule of finality of judgment. Except for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake or, accidental slips or omissions in the decision.
10A. It has further been observed in this judgment that the grounds for review would be similar to those specified in Order 47, Rule 1, CPC or for other sufficient reasons. The learned counsel for the respondent when confronted with the above legal aspect of the case could not respond.
11. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Member Board of Revenue and applications Nos. 153 and 154 of 2003 are declared to have been passed illegally and without lawful authority and of no legal effect.