Saqib Ali and Haris Ali (minor sons) through their real father Niaz Ali have filed this review petition under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 against Muhammad Hanif etc. respondents feeling aggrieved by this Court orders dated .20.6.2003 whereby Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab accepted the Revision Petition No, 1327/2002 of Muhammad Hanif etc. petitioners (present respondents) and set aside the order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura dated 30.7.2002.
2. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioners that at present the petitioners are in possession of two kanals of land in excess of their share in the khewat. That the change in khasra girdawari was reflected din the revenue record on 3.10.2001 and this was further carried out in revenue record and this -change was made with the Girdawari and the District Collector changed the khasra girdawari from the name of petitioner without hearing the petitioners. Executive District Officer (Revenue) ordered that as the case is pending in Civil Court let the Civil Court decide the case but this Court has reversed the order of Executive District Officer (Revenue) vide impugned order of this Court. The presence of petitioners has been reflected in Square No, 38 Killa No, 10/I so that the petitioners may be able to seek legal remedy from partition. Counsel has relied upon 1999 M LD 2583 & & 2004 CLC 995.
3. It has further been contended by counsel for petitioners that factual position can only be reflected in revenue record by restoring possession of disputed property to petitioners.
4. Counsel for the respondents argued that thee points raised by counsel for the petitioners have already been examined by this Court and they are mentioned in the impugned order and no new point has been raised which may warrant review of impugned order. That the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon "Rapt Rozenamcha Waqiati" dated 3.10.2001 in his favour but no entry in change in khasra girdawari in Regitter Taghuriat has been made. That the Civil Court is not competent to deal with correction of khasra girdawari under Section 172 of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and even if any civil suit is pending that is not binding on this Court.
5. Heard. Record perused. The contentions of counsel of the petitioners for review against the order of this Court dated 20.6.2003 have been examined carefully. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners relates to facts of the case which have already been examined after hearing both the parties and findings have been given. It has clearly been held that Saqib Ali and Haris Ali sons of Niaz Ali petitioners are admittedly minors and khasra girdawaris of Kharif 2001 in Square No, 38 Khewat No, 10/I measuring two Kanals in their favour appears to be arranged with the connivance of the revenue field staff. No record was produced at any level which could show the change of possession of respondent and before the entry of cultivation in favour of petitioners. So the merits of the case of petitioners have already been scrutinized and the findings given by this Court on the basis of appreciation of facts and record produced were clearly spelt out and no misreading of the facts has been proved by counsel of the petitioners. The scope of review under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 is limited. No irregularity or material infirmity has been pointed out by the petitioners in the impugned order to make out a sufficient cause for acceptance of review petition. The case cannot be re-opened on the purported exercise of review under Section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
6. In view of above no ground for acceptance of review petition is made out the same is therefore rejected being devoid of force.