JUDGMENT SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. - Briefly stated the facts of the petition, are that the predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 6 namely Muhammad Zaman Khan effecter of Chashma Barrage was issued entitlement certificate No. 83. The certificate was cancelled subsequently through order dated 26.6.1994 on the ground that land acquired from the effect the is less than the minimum required for alternative land. The allottee, however, was not dispossessed and was given advantage of memo. No. 1144-93/167-CI, dated 2.2.1994 of the Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. The predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 6 challenged the order of cancellation in appeal before Commissioner Sargodha Division, which met the same fate and was rejected on 27.3.1995.
Respondents Nos. 2 to.6 assailed order of rejection of appeal, dated 27.3.1995 in revision, before Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, which too was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.1999. First review application was fixed before learned Member Judicial-I, who vide order dated 6.5.2002 dismissed the review application. The second ; review was accepted by learned Member (Judicial-I), Board j of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 7.12.2004, who observed in the impugned order that the petitioners be accommodated keeping in view their long association of more than 30 years, over the land in dispute. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were allowed to purchase the"land at the market rate with 10% surcharge, in 14 equal instalments. The petitioner has voiced his grievance through the instant petition against the order passed in the second review application.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that review is a substantive right, it is the creation of the Statute which cannot be extended to a litigant, unless it is so provided by the Statute. Learned counsel in support of this contention has referred to the case of. "Muzaffar AH Vs. Muhammad Shafi" (PLD 1981 S.C. 94). He has submitted further that the provisions of Land Revenue Act provide only one review. No provision of law under the relevant statute provides second review.
Learned counsel in this respect found support from the case of "Ghulam Muhammad Vs. Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore" (2005 CLC 1512). He has further added that learned Member Judicial-I, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dismissed the first review application being barred by 2 years and 11 months.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has fully supported the impugned order.
Learned counsel has submitted that the order impugned is not a review in strict senso. Respondent No. 1 has granted the relief to the petitioner on the principle of equality between the citizens.
Learned counsel has referred to the case of "Mst. Noor Begum and others \/s. Member, Board of Revenue and others" (1989 SCM R 285) and "Fazal Hussain Vs. Walidad Khan and 22 others" (1996 CLC 1907) to contend that the second review is competent on different grounds between the different parties and there is no bar for the second review. Learned counsel has lastly contended that a litigant who has not taken any legal proceedings, is entitled under the rule of good governance to the benefit of judgment which covers. The case of such litigant in the identical circumstances. Learned counsel has vehemently urged that rules of good governance demand that the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court be extended to the appealing or the non- appealing party equally.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
5. There is' no cavil with the proposition that review is a substantive right and is always creation of the relevant Statute on the subject. Power of review is available or can be exercised, only when the Statute expressly bestows any power of review. This jurisdiction cannot be exercised when it is not specifically provided and the Court cannot grant relief by invoking the inherent powers on the assumption that the review, in fact, is the continuation of the proceedings. While saying, I am guided by the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Muzaffar Ali Vs. Muhammad Shafi" (PLD 1981 S.C. 94).
6. The power of review has been conferred upon Board of Revenue by virtue of section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957). The relevant provisions" of law are re-produced for ready reference:- "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 end important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was1 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, 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 sub-section (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree of order."
The above provisions of law provide that review is competent when new and important matter or evidence is discovered, which was not within the knowledge of the party despite exercise of due.
Diligence and which was not produced by the party at the time when the order or decree was passed. Additionally, the power to review can be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, nothing new was placed before respondent No. 1 at the time of the second review. Respondent No. 1 entertained the second review application on two grounds namely the respondents had long association with the land in dispute which was in their occupation for the past 30 years and there were precedents (order dated 6.7.1995 passed in B.O.R. No. 2395/1995) of sale of land by Board of Revenue. To the occupants in continuous possession. These, grounds were urged before respondent No. T at the time of first review application. Nothing new was agitated in the second review. Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Khan, Member Judicial-I, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore considered all these contentions and incorporated, the same in para-3 of his order dated 6.5.2002. The then learned Member Board of Revenue, refused to review the order as the respondents have filed the review application after the lapse of two years and 11 months, the respondents filed second review application on 10.6.2002, on which the impugned order was passed. The period for filing a review application is 90 days from the order. Respondent No. 1 has entertained the review application ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by law, while his predecessor had already declined to review the, order considering the application being barred by limitation. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity, it has been passed, ignoring the express provisions of law and is not sustainable. Additionally, no provision exists under the law to allow the second review application, before the Board of Revenue. A learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Province of Punjab Vs. Muhammad Akram (2004 YLR 915) has held that the Court cannot do what the statute expressly forbids. The order passed on the first review application, rejecting the review application, attained finality, as it has not been challenged before any other forum.
7: The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order (passed in the second review application) is without any lawful authority, in excess of jurisdiction. It has /io legal effect.
8. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 7.12.2004 is set aside, with the result that order dated 6.5.2002 passed in first review application, is maintained. No order as to costs.