' HUSSAIN KUTIB ALI SIIAH (MEMBER).-These are three revision petitions filed before the Full Board against the order dated 16-6-1975 passed by learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Sind (Late Haji Dhani Bux Soomro), whereby the review petitions of the petitioners in respect of land situated in deh Morho Raiji, Taluka Jati, granted to the respondent, was rejected.
2. Facts of the case briefly are that the disputed land measuring 66-01 acres of deh Morho Raiji, taluka Jati was granted by the Revenue Officer, Kotri Barrage, Hyderabad, to the respondent under the "Scheme of Settlers of District of Northern Zone". Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed appeals before the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Sind, who vide his order dated 11th January, 1973 upheld appeals with further directions that the land should be granted to the appellants. Against this order respondent filed appeals to the Board of Revenue. The Additional Member I, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 16-6-1975 upheld the appeals of the respondent and allowed restoration of the grant to him. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed review petitions. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Sind, vide order dated 29-9-1975 rejected the review petitions. Hence these revisions to i,e, Full Board.
3. Heard the counsels for the parties on the point of admission. According to section 7 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, read with rule 5 of the Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions)
Rules, 1959, the revision to Full Board lies only in the cases where the orders made o decrees passed by the "Court" subordinate to the Board are reversed o modified by the Members, Board of Revenue, on appeal. In the present case, the order was passed by the Additional Revenue Commissioner, while the then Additional Member, Board of Revenue, had set aside the order in appeal. The 'Revenue Court' is defined in section 4(22) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as a 'Court' constituted as such under the law relating to the tenancy as in force for the time being. Obviously no 'Court' as such has been constituted under law or by notification. Hence the order of the subordinate Revenue Officer cannot be said to have been passed by the `Court' within the meaning of rule 5 of the Sind Board of Revenue Rules. This interpretation is further supported by the Supreme Court ruling reported in PLD 1965 SC 393. The counsel for the petitioners conceded this position but argued that the Revenue authorities sitting in judgment over the rights and disputes of the parties are to be treated as 'Court' by implication, irrespective of the fact whether any specific order/notification constituting that authority as a 'Court' was issued or not. He also conceded that there is an normally in the revenue law as the 'Revenue Court', though defined in the Land Revenue Act, 1967, has not been specifically constituted as such and in these circumstances the Board of Revenue, being the highest Court of appeal, could hold such Revenue authorities as 'Revenue Court' for the purpose of rule 5 of the Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1959.
4. We have considered these arguments. The main point for consideration is whether the orders passed by the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Hyderabad were the orders passed by the 'Revenue Court'. The learned counsel for the petitioners, despite elaborate arguments, failed to satisfy the Full Board that the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner were passed by him in his capacity as a 'Revenue Court' or that the Revenue Court as such has been constituted under the Act or notification to give jurisdiction to the Full Board to hear revisions. The Board is also of the considered view that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner cannot be deemed to have been passed by the 'Revenue Court'. The legal position being such, the revisions are not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed.