' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Mirza Shahjahan Haider Gorgani, the petitioner, through the present petition, seeks review of order, dated 18-2-2003, whereby this Court dismissed his petition for leave to appeal (Civil Petition No,1219-L of 1999).
2. The facts of case as capitulated in order under review read as follows:-- "(2) Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned order are to the effect that "petitioner's father Mirza Munawar Hussain Haider Gorgani being refugee from Bhopal State (non-agreed area) was allotted land under claim in different villages of Tehsil Minchanabad District Bahawalnagar under Rehabilitation Laws, who filed the declaration under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and the Deputy Land Commissioner determined his holding equivalent to 16233 produce index units, found him entitled to retain 14000 produce index units remaining 2233 produce index units being excess were resumed provisionally, vide order, dated 8-12-1972, after providing choice to the declarant considered to be surrendered by him, the land so surrendered was purchased by the declarant on payment from the Government in instalments, in Mauza Kot Ghulam Muhammad Shah and Samand Singh. The land purchased by the declarant was further sold to different persons and sale mutations to that effect were also sanctioned in favour of the vendees in the year 1991. In the meantime the Government vide Notification No,ASR-H-4095/73/798, dated 14-2-1974, had introduced a policy for giving concession in evaluation produce index units to the holdings hit by "salinity (SEM) and water logging (thur) and the petitioner after the death of his father (declarant) on 6-9-1991, filed application to the Deputy Land Commissioner Bahawalpur, claiming that as the land, allotted to the declarant in Mauza Lasl Amar Singh was barren and uncultivable riversat jungle and in other Mauzas water logged and barren, so the concession offered,by the. Government he also granted and their holding be recalculated and determined, mentioning therein that his late father (declarant) has been applying for the purpose to the Land Commission Authorities, but remain undecided. He further claimed in the said application that as the provision of Martial Law Regulation 1972 had been declared repugnant to the injunction of Islam, therefore, the resumed land be restored to them. The Deputy Land Commissioner, vide his order, dated 30-9-1991, dismissed the application on the ground that the same was filed belatedly and the ruling of the Shariat Appellate Bench was made applicable w.e.f, 23-3-1990, and the land of the declarant (father of the petitioner) had been resumed in 1972. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, the same was treated as Revision as no appeal was competent against the impugned order, and the revision was dismissed vide order, dated 3-8-1994. The petitioner yet being not satisfied challenged that order before the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, which met the same fate and the revision was dismissed on 19-11-1998, the last revision also did not find favour before the Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and the same was also dismissed on 13-5-1999. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition which has been rejected, hence this petition."
' This Court after dealing with and deciding the contentions raised by the learned counsel dismissed the said petition (C.P.1219-L of 1999) being meritless, vide order, dated 18-2-2003, which is under review before us.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following two contentions:--
(i) The original declarant and father of the petitioner namely Mirza Munawar Hussain Haider Gorgani approached the concerned authority through an application, dated 16-9-1976 for availing concession available under Notification No,ASR-II-4095/73/798. Dated 14-2-1974, therefore the request was not made at belated stage and this fact was not considered in the order under review.
He has added that the petitioner after the death of his father stepped into the shoes of his father, therefore, he for all intends and purposes was a declarant.
(ii) The Federal Land Commission had singly decided the matter, while under the law he could not sit singly to determine the matter because the power to deal with such-like matters was conferred on Chairman and Member Federal Land Commission jointly and as a whole and not upon a single person. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 and Mst. Tayyaba Khanam and others v. Chairman Federal Land Commission and others 1984 SCMR 1110 (Civil Appeal No,133 of 1978, heard on 16th May, 1983) (wrongly printed as 1994 SCM R 1110).
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record of review petition as well as of civil petition for leave to appeal.
5. We find that although the grounds now agitated before us were available to the petitioner, when the petition was argued, yet as it is evident from the order under review the learned .Counsel for the petitioner did not raise the said contentions at the relevant point of time. Thus, the petitioner is now precluded from urging the contentions in review proceedings which were not argued at the time of hearing the petition for leave to appeal. Reference can be made to the case of MianjA Rafique Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another PLD 1997 SC 865. Moreover, the assertions of the learned counsel do not constitute either an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important B facts and evidence on record, which grounds are sine qua non for exercise of review jurisdiction by this Court. Reference can be made to Mst. Kalsoom Malik and others v. Assistant Commissioner and others 1996 SCM R 710 and Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council, Jhang and 2 others 2004 SCM R 1213.
' The review petition in hand deserves to be dismissed on the legal grounds noted above, however, we feel inclined also to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel.
6. As regards the first contention. We have examined the order under review and find that the petitioner did not raise the plea now urged before this Court in review proceedings. His stance in the petition for leave to appeal was that an application for grant of concession due to water logging and salinity was moved in the year 1972, which was not considered, the application was not filed at belated stage and the authority concerned should have taken a suo motu action in view of circular, dated 14-2-1974. It appears appropriate to reproduce para.3 of the order under review, wherein contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been recorded:--- "(3) It is mainly contended on behalf of petitioner that at first instance application for grant of concession due to water logging and salinity was moved in the year 1972 which could not be considered for the reasons best known to the authority concerned and thus, it cannot he said that the authority concerned was moved at a belated stage and moreso, on the ground of delay concessions once announced cannot be withheld. It is next contended that it was bounden duty of the authority concerned to have taken suo motu action in view of the policy as formulated for the areas affected by water logging and salinity and no specific request in black and white was to be made by the affected landowners, It is further contended that the land was never classified on the basis of soil before passing of resumption orders which resulted in serious prejudice against the petitioner. It is urged with vehemence that the Land Commission had failed to take appropriate action regarding the policy concerning concession for the affected areas by logging and salinity in view of the circular, dated 14-2-1974 and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not approaching the authority concerned in time." 14-2-1974, however, it has not even been mentioned in the application that the father of the petitioner did file an application on 16-9-1976. The afore- noted undated application does not show that the petitioner is claiming his rights as successor-in- interest of the original declarant. Additionally, the order, dated 30-9-1991 by Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, dismissing petitioner's application does not state that the application filed by the petitioner was in continuation with petitioner father's application, dated 16- 9-1976. The first contention of the learned counsel has no force, thus, repelled.
8. Now dealing with the other contention of the learned counsel, who has mainly relied on the case of Mst. Tayyaba Khanam and others (ibid). Interestingly the answer of the second contention is available in the said judgment itself. It has inter alia been held that so for as the first point is concerned, it stands disposed of in view of the validation clause inserted by amendment made vide Ordinance XXIX of 1978. It appears that the learned counsel has cited the case of Mst. Tayyaba Khanam (supra) only after reading the head note (a) of the judgment and did not find time to go through the whole judgment, which itself contains the answer of the proposition raised by him. It appears appropriate to reproduce para.18 of the judgment which reads as follow:-- "In the order of this Court, dated 21-6-1978 leave was granted, inter alia, only on two points viz. that an individual member of the Federal Land Commission could not exercise the powers exercisable by the Commission as a whole; and that the interpretation of paragraph 7(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, as put by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission is untenable. So far as the first point is concerned, it stands disposed of in view of the validation clause inserted by amendment made vide Ordinance XXIX of 1978. Regarding the second point, I would allow this appeal and, declare the impugned order of the Federal Land Commission, dated 8-1-1976 to be of no legal effect and would, therefore, quash the same. In the result, the order, dated 24-6-1974 passed by the learned Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab will stand restored. In the circumstances of this case I would make no order as to costs." (underlining is for emphasis).
' Now it appears appropriate to reproduce the text of validation clause inserted by the Land Reforms Regulations (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1978 through Ordinance XXIX of 1978, which came into force on 25th June, 1978 and reads as follows:-- "2. Validation.--- Notwithstanding any order or decision of any Court, any order passed by the Chairman or by a Member of the Federal Land Commission at any time before the commencement of this Ordinance and purporting to be in exercise of the authority conferred on the Chairman and Members of the Commission by an order of the Federal Government under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, shall be deemed to have been validly passed and shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, effect accordingly."(underlining is ours).
The Government of Pakistan issued a Notification, dated 23-9-1978 thereby authorizing for the purpose of para.29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, the Chairman of Federal Land Commission and each of the Member of the said Commission to act severally. Notification is reproduced below:-- "Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat (Cabinet Division)
Rawalpindi, the 23rd September, 1978.
Notification ' No,R-1972/LR-1-78. In exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, the Federal Government is pleased to authorize for the purpose of the said paragraph the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission and each of the Members of the said Commission, acting severally.
(Sd.) Gulzar Bano, Cabinet Secretary.
' No,R-1972/LR/1-78 Rawalpindi, the 23rd September, 1978.
' A copy is forwarded to the Manager, Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press, Islamabad, for publication in the Gazette of Pakistan.
(Sd.) Gulzar Bano, Cabinet Secretary."
' The resume of the above narrative is that in view of promulgation of Ordinance XXIX of 1978 any order passed by the Chairman or by a Member of Federal Land Commission singly before 25-6- 1978 stood validated while, through Notification, dated 23-9-1978 (ibid) they have been authorized for the purpose of paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 to act severally. In the instant case, the Chairman, Federal Land Commission passed the order on 23-5-1999, (which was challenged by the petitioner through the constitutional petition), therefore, in view of notification, dated 23-9-1978 (ibid) it was validly passed and no exception could be taken.
9. In the above perspective, we have examined the order under review and find that the same does not suffer from any error, within the parameters of law, sufficient to review the well-based and well- founded order, dated 18-2-2003. Thus, we are not persuaded to review the said order, which is hereby maintained.
10. In view of the above, the present review petition is legally incompetent and devoid of merit as well, thus, stands dismissed on both the counts.