1. ' MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.---This common order shall dispose of Constitution Petitions Nos.
2. 398/2003, 399/2003, 400/2003, 401/2003, 402/2003, 403/2003 and 443/2003.
3. ' The common facts of the case are that some pieces of land situated in Khuzdar were entered in the name of the petitioners during the year 1992 while some of the properties were entered in the name of Government. (The details of the properties mentioned in the petitions are not required to be mentioned and will be stated as 'land in dispute'). Private respondents as well as petitioners filed appeals against order of settlement officer, Kalat Division. Against the said order of the settlement officer, who had accepted some of the appeals, vide order dated 25-7-1993, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Kalat at Khuzdar, who treated the said appeals filed by petitioners as well as Government as revision and decided vide order dated 28-7-1994. The observations of the learned Commissioner, Kalat are reproduced herein below:-- "Therefore, I consider the arguments/documents produced by the private respondents un- acceptable as being false and order that the appeals mentioned at Sr. Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6, are accepted and all the lands bearing Khasras 1 to 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 46, 47, 50, 54, 56, 57 and 59 which are absolutely un-cultivable, ordered to be entered in the name of. Provincial Government. However since the representative of the Provincial Government admitted that the cultivable lands around have been given to the tenants on ownership basis therefore Khasra Nos.6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 39 which are mentioned in record as Banjar Qadeem (un-cultivated since long but cultivable) are allowed to remain entered in the name of the tenants in possession on satisfaction of the Collector."
4. ' Against aforementioned order of the Commissioner, Kalat Division private respondents filed a revision petition before Member Board of Revenue which was decided vide two orders made separately on the same day on 11-1-1997. In the first order the learned Member Board of Revenue held that the suit under section 53 of the Land Revenue Act is proper remedy and respective parties can approach the court of competent jurisdiction. Whereas in the second order while setting aside the order of Commissioner Kalat dated 11-1-1997 and restoring the order of Collector/Settlement Officer had further observed that the aggrieved party can approach the court of competent jurisdiction. Against the aforementioned orders a review petition was filed by Government before Full Board of Revenue under section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The learned Board of Revenue set aside the orders passed by authorities concerned i,e, Settlement Officer, Kalat Division and Member Board of Revenue in the following terms:- "For the reasons stated above, the Review Applications are granted and orders dated 25-7-1993, 28-7-1994 and 11-1-1997 passed by the Settlement Officer, Kalat Division, Commissioner Kalat Division and the MBR-III are set aside. A direction is also given to the Settlement Officer to record necessary remarks on the record prepared in 1992 with regard to its illegality. Secondly, whenever, the record is called for by a Court, the official concerned should inform the Court concerned about its illegality."
5. ' Against aforementioned judgment passed by Full Board Constitution petitions Nos.816/1999 to 820/1999 and 820/1999(sic) were filed. Division Bench of this court was pleased to set aside the order of the Member Board of Revenue Balochistan on 21-8-1999 and remanded the case to Full Board of Revenue with directions to decide the question of limitation as well as applicability of section 116 of the Land Revenue Act. It was also mentioned that the settlement notified in Tehsil Khuzdar in the year 1976 or 1981 was not continuing process and new notification was required to be made or otherwise. The learned Full Board of Revenue after remand of the case held that the impugned order was void on account of non-issuance of notification under section 116 of Land Revenue Act. The learned Board also came to the conclusion that the order was void and delay of 45 days was accordingly held to be condonable as it does not run against void order. The learned Board of Revenue while examining the case came to the conclusion (i) that during the settlement started in the year 1971 Mouza of Sorgaz Janubi consisting of `GHAIR MUMKIN RAGHA', `GHAIR MUMKIN GHUNDI' and `BANJAR KADEEM' were left unmeasured, (ii) second revision took place the during year 1975-76, (iii) during the year 1977 vide Notification dated 18-2-1977 all tenants of the State land were shown as occupancy tenants and were directed to be entered as owners, (iv) in year 1981-82 a special revision was directed relating to 26 mouzas located within 5 miles of Khuzdar town for the purposes of revision. From perusal of order it appears that in order to establish Cantonment area the Army Authorities had approached the local administration for transfer of unmeasured government land to Khuzdar Cantonment and thus in order to examine said aspect of the matter and to make recommendations local administration of Khuzdar asked the Settlement Officer for measurement. The settlement which was carried out during the year 1971 till 1981 having no nexus had come to end with the remarks that the said disputed land is a `GHAIR MUMKIN RAGHA', `GHAIR MUMKIN GHUNDI'- and `BANJAR KADEEM' was not required to be measured. The purposes of notification issued stood achieved and it was in year 1992 that the local administration had asked the settlement authorities to measure the land for the purposes of inclusion it in Cantonment area meaning thereby that there was no notification in existence under section 116 of Land Revenue Act in the year 1992 whereby settlement authorities had the jurisdiction to record entries pursuant' to settlement process. The above judgment was challenged before this court, petitions were admitted for regular hearing and notices were directed to the respondents. The Board of Revenue had filed parawise comments and has reiterated the same version.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners, while Mr. Shamsuddin, Advocate appeared on behalf of Muhammad Hassan, who is also petitioner in C.P.
7. No,443 of 2003.
8. ' Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate stated that there was no boating error warranting interference by the Board of Revenue as such rders made by Full Board of Revenue had exercised authority beyond heir jurisdiction. It was further contended that the observations of the learned Board condoning the delay in filing of review application was not proper and legal. It was further contended that order of Board of Revenue was not set aside as such authorities had no jurisdiction to recall revenue entries.
9. ' On the other hand Mr. Aminuddin Bazai, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgments stating that there was no notification in existence in the year 1992 allowing settlement authorities to incorporate the names of the petitioners as owners in the property. It was further contended that the orders were void ab initio and thus petitioner cannot take advantage of ill gotten gains and the Board had/ rightly condoned the delay.
10. ' We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record., The right of review has been provided by section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which is reproduced herein below:-- "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 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."
11. The above provision of law has given powers to the Board of Revenue relating to any order which is found on discovery of new facts based on mistake or error affecting the root of the case. The powers as given appears to be very wide and the legislature in their wisdom allowed the Full Board to examine even new grounds. The Commissioner has already held that the petitioners had obtained the said property on the basis of false documents and thus there was no occasion for the Member Board of Revenue to have directed the parties to approach civil court of jurisdiction after retaining the said entries on the file of revenue record . The said orders were apparently obtained on the basis f misrepresentation and fraudulent documents. It is to further note that there was no notification in existence, authorizing the settlement authorities by virtue of section 116 of Land Revenue Act to make settlement entries. So far as the powers of the Full Board constitute under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 are concerned Division Bench of this court in the case of Munawar Kashan and another versus Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Revenue, Balochistan Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others (2000 M LD 2015) while interpreting provisions has pleased to observe as under:- " It may not be out of place to mention here that admittedly the power of review are not available under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967) but is available under Act XI of 1957.
12. 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 M LD 2876)."
13. So far as the second question as regards applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act under the Land Revenue Act and condonation of delay the learned Member Board of Revenue had already condoned the limitation holding that it was a void order. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in the case of Sardar Ahmed Yar Khan Jogezai and two others v. Province of Balochistan (2002 SCM R 122), that in case, if the order is passed and the exercise 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 amount to misconduct."
14. ' We had confronted above position of law, to Mr. Shamsuddin, Advocate who had filed the Constitutional Petition No,443/2003 having adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the other petitioners, however, in other Constitution Petitions Nos.398/2003, 399/2003, 400/2003, 401/2003, 402/2003 and 403/2003, he was not in a position to reply the above question as he was appearing for respondents. So far the point raised that the order made by Member Board of Revenue has not been set aside may be an error would not affect materially as the learned Board on the basis of non-existence of notification held and declared the whole proceedings as void. We do not see any illegality, irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction while passing the impugned order by the Full Board of Revenue.
15. ' For the reasons stated above we see no merits in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.
…and 6 more citing cases