' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 2626 and 2938 of 2003 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petitions are to the effect that the land measuring 100 Kanals, each had been allotted to the petitioners in Chak No,26/DNB Tehsil Yazman District Bahawalpur in favour of the petitioners respectively under 5 Years Temporary Cultivation Scheme on the basis of auction held in the years 1984. The petitioners deposited advance Zar-e-Laghan in the treasury. They applied for grant of proprietary rights, which was refused vide order dated 20-11- 1991 and the land of the petitioners had been resumed by the Settlement Officer/District Officer, Bahawalpur. The appeals filed by the petitioners had also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur vide his order dated 7-6-1994. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners filed revision petitions R.O.R. Nos.1738 and 1739 of 1994. The same had been accepted by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 11-1-1995. The said order of the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) was assailed through a review petition by the D . C . /Collector, Bahawalpur, which was dismissed vide order dated 18-1-2001. One Riaz Ahmad son of Abdul Shakoor had filed as second review petition which had been accepted by the Board of Revenue through the impugned order dated 28-6-2003 setting aside the order of Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue dated 11-1-1995.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently objected that the second review petition was not competent before the M.B.R. And there was no fresh ground or material available to interfere with the first order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Further contends that Riaz Ahmad who filed the second review petition was not an aggrieved person and had no locus standi to file the review petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5. Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act empowers the Board to review a decree or order passed by the Board. The relevant provisions of section 8 of the said Act reads asunder:-- "Review of orders 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 order 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."
' From mere perusal of the above provision of law, it is clear that a person (a) who is an aggrieved by a decree or order by the Board is entitled to apply for its review; (b) when he discovers a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge; (c) or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed; (d) the order was made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (e) other sufficient reasons; (f) the Limitation for filing such an application is 90 days.
6. The Member, Board of Revenue has confirmed and approved the auction in favour of the petitioners on the ground that non-approval of the auction was not the fault of the petitioners but it was the fault of the Collector who failed to approve/ disapprove the auction of land. The Member, Board of Revenue who is the highest authority of the Revenue "hierarchy", is very much competent to approve the auction and in exercising the same powers, the then Member, Board of Revenue (Raza Ali) Member (Colonies) had affirmed the auction held in favour of the petitioner. However, this order was challenged through the review petition before Muhammad Ayoub Malik, Member Judicial-II, Board of Revenue, who dismissed the review petition filed by the State through the Collector on the grour.:' that the review of the order dated 11-1-1995 of the M.B.R. Had been sought after lapse of four years and 7 months. He also observed that the possession of the land had also been delivered to the petitioners/ allottees and they had also deposited an amount of Rs,27,268 as Laghan under the direction of High Court.
7. The second review was filed by a person namely Riaz Ahmad, who was neither an allottee of the land nor an aggrieved person. Further second review petition had also been filed after the delay of more than four years. While passing the order dated. 18-1-2001, the Member, Board of Revenue attended all the objections raised by the District Collector in his reference. The question of non- confirmation of the auction of lease has also been dealt with by Member, Board of Revenue and whatever the important evidence brought to the notice has also been discussed. The said order was well-reasoned order.
8. There is no provision in the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act for filing a second review petition.
This legal question of maintainability of second review petition by the Board of Revenue has already been dealt with by the superior Courts. A careful analysis of the provisions of section 8 (supra) leads to a conclusion that power of review can be exercised by the Board of Revenue, only upon an application filed by a person who considers himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new 4and 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 and the order was made. The Board has no power of suo motu review. In this context reliance can be placed to the case of Umar Din and others v.
Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others (1984 CLC 17).
9. Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. Has also conferred powers of review on the Court to review its decree or order or judgment from which no appeal is allowed on the grounds mentioned in rule 1 of Order XLVII, C.P.C. But rule 9 of Order XLVII has placed a bar on this power of review, which is reproduced below for further ready reference:-- "Bar of certain applications. ---(1) No application to review an order made on an application for a review of 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 order made by the Supreme Court."
10. The power of entertaining second review application is neither contained in the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act nor in the Civil Procedure Code as contained in rule 9 of Order XLVII (supra).
In case of Muhammad Shafi v. The Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and 2 others (1995 CLC 966), it has been observed that after dismissal of first review application, second review 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 principle of res judicata and rule of finality of judgment---Except for clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions in the decision which every Court, Tribunal or Authority has inherit powers to correct second application for review after the decision of first on its merits could not be competently instituted.
11. The power of review has been confirmed only on the Board of Revenue provided an aggrieved person files an application for review of an order and it is for the application that he must once take all the available grounds of review of the decision sought by him. If any ground is omitted by him, it could be added through application for amendment. However, once the final decision was reached on a review application, the subsequent application for review, in absence of a clear available course must lie. The Honourable Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Muhammad Shafi (supra) has clearly observed that I am conscious of the fact that there was no express prohibition for a second review application in the West Pakistan, Board of Revenue Act, 1957 but it did not either expressly or impliedly exclude the general principle of res judicata and rule of finality of judgment.
12. Section 7 of the West Pakistan, Board of Revenue Act contemplates that:-- "(1) Any order made or a decree passed by a Member either on appeal or in revision shall, subject to any order made or decree passed under the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and of section 8, be final.
(2) Any person considering himself aggrieved by an order made or a decree passed by a Member, in such class of cases as may be specified in the rules framed under section 9 of this Act, may apply to the Board for revision of such order or decree, and if the Full Board considers that there are sufficient reasons for doing so, it may revise that order or decree and pass such further order as it may think fit after hearing the applicant: 'Provided that no revision shall lie to the Full Board against an order made or a decree passed by a member in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction."
' When this provision of law is read in conjunction with rule 5 of the West Pakistan, Board of Revenue, the conclusion would be that an application for review under subsection (2) of section 7 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act shall lie to the "Full Bench" only. It is manifestly clear that an order passed in review by the Board of Revenue is D revisable by the Board provided the application is placed before the Full Bench of the Board. The result would be that an order passed by a Member, Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction can be reviewed by a Full Bench and not by a Single Member of the Board of Revenue.
13. A Judge, authority or the member is competent to review its own order, judgment or decision in exercise of its power of review as envisaged in rule 2 of Order XLVII that an application for review of a decree or order of a Court, not being a High Court, upon some ground other than the discovery of such new and important matter or evidence as if referred to in rule 1 of the existence of a clerical or arithmetical mistake or error apparent on the face of the decree, shall be made only to the Judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed, but any such application may, if the Judge who passed the decree or made the order has ordered notice to issue under sub-rule (2), proviso (a), be disposed of by his successor.
14. In the instant case, the order passed in revision was reviewed by his successor who affirmed the order of his predecessor through subsequent review application which was not maintainable. If at all, it was entertained, it could have been placed before the Full Bench because two different members of the Board of Revenue have already given their verdict in favour of the petitioners. The Board of Revenue is the highest forum of the Revenue hierarchy, therefore, the analogy would be that the second review petition would be placed before more than one Member of the Board of Revenue (Full Board) who should hear the second application provided it was within the time or fulfil the requirement of subsection (1) of section 8. Rule 5 of the Order XLVII, C.P.C. Is attracted to the present case which enshrines that where the Judge or Judges, or anyone of the Judges who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which, is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same.
14-A. After dismissal of the first review application filed by the District Collector who was the aggrieved and interested party, the finality has been attached to the matter in favour of the petitioners and the second or third application for review on the same ground is opposite to natural justice. No prohibition is contained in West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act for filing a second review application but the principle for filing the same would be the same as provided in section 8(1) of the Board of Revenue Act and rule 1 of Order XLVII, C.P.C. No person who is not an aggrieved by the judgment or order can be allowed to initiate the proceedings by filing review application against any other person in whose favour order of the competent authority like the Board of Revenue had been passed.
15. While accepting the application for review filed by Riaz Ahmad, the Member, Board of Revenue (Mr. Javed Aslam) had made certain observations i.e, "that the understanding of my predecessor about colonies law is reflected in the order dated 11-1-1995 where he had held that the confirmation was also to be made by the Assistant Commissioner who conducted the auction proceedings; and that my learned predecessor had wrongfully interpreted the rules and regulation and had granted relief wheie none was due".
16. I am afraid if such type of criticism by one colleague on other colleague is allowed, it would cause damage to the institution, the Authority and the hierarchy of the system, if it was the opinion of the learned Member (Javed Aslam) that the order dated 11-1-1995 had not been passed in accordance with law or that the review order was in consonance with the law, policy and the rules made thereunder, he could have referred the matter with his opinion to the Full Bench by filing the procedure in section 7 of the Act and rule 5 of the relevant rules.
17. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in observing that the second review application filed by Riaz Ahmad is not maintainable which has not been filed by an aggrieved person within limitation and neither fresh material or evidence was available nor any sufficient ground has been established. The second application has been entertained illegally by he Member, Board of Revenue who passed the impugned order dated 28-6-2003, therefore, these writ petitions are accepted, consequently, the impugned order is declared to have been passed illegally, without lawful authority without jurisdiction, hence set aside.