' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed Revision Petition No,585 of 1997 before the Member Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same vide order dated 9-2-1998. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the review petition before the Member Board of Revenue on 27-6-2000, which was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 23-6-2004, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that private respondents have prepared general power of attorneys of the original allottee in favour of Muhammad Saeed Kazmi and Faizullah on 30-1-1990 whereas the original allottee has since been died on 1-5-1986. The proof of the death of the original allottee was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of deciding the revision petition by the Member Board of Revenue. The petitioner has filed review petition immediately after securing the aforesaid documents. The respondents fabricated general power of attorneys of the original allottee, therefore, orders from the tribunals below by playing fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, the Member Board of Revenue erred in law to dismiss the revision petition as time- barred.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. It is better and appropriate to reproduce operative part of the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue dated 23-6-2004 and the grounds of review petition to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- "I have considered the arguments of two sides and have carefully examined the record available on the file. The Member (Colonies) dismissed the revision petition agreeing with following points:-- -
(i) Resumption order was passed at the back of allottees of lots without issuing any notice which was vital requirement of law as observed by the High Court vide order dated 3-7-1966 passed in Writ Petition No,610 of 1958.
(ii) Only Chairman, Thal Development Authority was competent to resume the lot. Order of Colonization Officer in this behalf was beyond jurisdiction.
(iii) There was no limitation against void order. After rejection of review petition, Writ Petitions Nos.5080, 5089 and 5090 of 1998 were filed alleging that valuable rights had accrued in favour of petitioner because of allotment orders in their favour. Resumption orders were passed on 11-3-1963 on highly time-barred appeals by lqbal Begum and Khalid Mahmood.
' Review application before Commissioner was time-barred. They spent huge amounts and labour to bring the land under cultivation. Both tribunals below did not take into consideration subsequent events Ashfaq Hussain and Shafi Ullah prepared forged powers of attorney and initiated proceedings for setting aside resumption proceedings at belated stage. Whereabouts of lqbal Begum and Khalid Mahmood were not known.
Honourable Judge of the High Court observed that petitioners did not bring on record any document to show that respondents Mst. Iqbal Begum and Khalid Mahmood had died or respondents Ashfaq Hussain Shah and Haji Shafi Ullah prepared a forged document. Writ petitions were disposed of on 26-3-1999 having no merit directing petitioners to approach Civil Court if so advised.
' Present review petition was filed on 27-6-2000 against order dated 9-2-1998 i.e, 2-1/2 years afterwards. Review petition is time-barred. Petitioners have produced some documents to show that original all Khalid Mahmood Khan died on 1-5-1986. Iqbal Begum still could not be traced.
Power of attorney prepared after his death had no significance. Petitioners were supposed to produce this documentary evidence before the High Court but they failed to do so. They should have sought remedy from High Court instead of filing this review petition on the basis of newly discovered documentary evidence. Any order passed by this Court at this stage may tantamount to interference in the order of the High Court. In any case review petition is badly time-barred. All other points raised have already been considered, therefore, these cannot justify a review, which has a limited scope. For reasons discussed above review petition is rejected." {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is admitted fact that petitioner filed a review petition before the Member Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same vide order dated 9-2-1998. The petitioner filed review petition before the Member Board of Revenue on 27-6-2000, which is time-barred 2 years and six months. The petitioner has not mentioned a single sentence qua the date of knowledge of securing the documents of death of the original allottee. The petitioner has not filed application for condonation of delay along with the review application, therefore, the Member Board of Revenue was justified to dismiss the review petition as time-barred as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Atta Ullah Malik's case PLD 1964 SC 236. It is also settled principle of law that where the statute itself prescribes period of filing a review petition section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted in view of section 29 of the Limitation Act as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Allah Dino's case 2001 SCM R 286.
' Even otherwise in case the contents of the writ petition and the impugned order are put in a juxtaposition then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Younas Khan's case 1993 SCM R 618. The petitioner is well within his right to approach the competent Court for resolution of disputed question of fact as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the competent Court shall, of course decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the observation of this Court.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.