1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN, C.J.--- This constitutional petition arises out of the following facts:-- ' Muhammad Rafique, petitioner herein, secured allotment of crown land measuring 12 Marlas, but of survey No,1737, under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Khalsa Land (Ground Rent and Lease) Rules, 1985, vide order of District Collector, dated August 1, 1993. His allotment was challenged by Zaffer Ahmed, private respondent, before the Revenue Commissioner, consequently the allotment was cancelled vide order of the Revenue Commissioner, dated January 15, 1995, along with the mutation sanctioned in view of allotment order. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order of Revenue Commissioner, filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue from where the case was remanded to the Revenue Commissioner vide order, dated July 24, 1995, with the direction to determine whether allotment in question was made out of Khalsa Land or Shamlat- e-Deh property. A further direction was given by the Board of Revenue to look into the matter regarding the decree by Civil Court in order to see whether the piece of land, allotment to the petitioner, was included in the decree or not. After remand of the case, the Additional Commissioner again dismissed the revision petition by maintaining his previous decision. The petitioner once again challenged the order of Revenue Commissioner before the Board of Revenue through a revision petition. His revision petition was dismissed, consequently he filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue which stood rejected by the said Board. A second review petition was brought before the Board of Revenue, however, the same was also dismissed in view of scope of review under law. The parties are found to have been contesting the nature of the disputed property before the Civil Court but the fate of this litigation is not known from the record appended with this petition. However, the civil litigation and its result would not be relevant in view of the observations hereinafter.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the single member of Board of Revenue was not competent to hear and decide the revision and successive review petitions, therefore, all the orders recorded by the Board of Revenue, were coram-non-judice. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate that the points on the basis of which the case was remanded to the Revenue Commissioner by the Board of Revenue were neither considered nor decided by the learned Revenue Commissioner. The Board of Revenue, while deciding the review petitions, ignored the points formulated through its earlier order while deciding the first revision petition by the petitioner, the learned counsel maintained.
3. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents, while controverting the arguments on the side of petitioner, submitted that the Board of Revenue was fully competent to hear and decide the revision petition or the successive review petitions before it filed by the petitioner. Moreover, he, while pressing his case before the Board of Revenue, submitted before the Jurisdiction of the Board, therefore, he cannot be allowed to turn around and say that the Board was not seized with the jurisdiction to hear the case brought by him before it. It was further argued that the point of scope of review petition was not taken in the pleadings, therefore, it could not be raised before this Court while hearing constitutional petition.
4. ' The record has been examined in view of the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner, during his arguments, emphasize mainly on two points:--
(1) The jurisdiction of single Member Board of Revenue and
(2) The scope of review petition before the Board of Revenue.
6. ' In order to reach a correct conclusion, this Court feels it advisable to deal with the relevant provisions of law. Under section 3 of the AJ&K Board of Revenue Act, 1993, the constitution of Board of Revenue has been provided. It consists of such number of members as may be appointed by the Government from time to time, however, whole time members shall not exceed two. One out of them shall be designated as Senior Member. Similarly, the conduct of business has been provided under section 6 of the Act. According to this section, the Board may distribute its business amongst its members and may, by rules, regulate the procedure of all proceedings before it. Under subsection (2) of section 6, the powers of distribution of business of the Board shall be exercised by the Senior Member who shall be the principal executive of the Board. Subsection (3) to section 6 provides that any order made or a decree passed by a member shall be deemed to be the order or decree of the Board. Under section 7 of the Act, any order made or a decree passed by a member either on appeal or in a revision, shall subject to any order made or decree passed under the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of this section and section 8 shall be final. Subsection (2) to section 7 deal with the cases specified in the rules framed under section 9 of this Act; whereas subsection (3) to section 7 deal with the limitation for any application under subsection (2) or revision of an order or decree which is 90 days from the date of such order to decree. Section 8 of the Act deals with the review of orders by the Board and this section provides the scope of review petition before the Board of Revenue.
7. ' The perusal of the above stated provisions of law would show that senior member Board of Revenue is competent to delegate his powers to any member of Board of Revenue and any order made or decree passed by a member under law is the order or decree of the Board. Therefore, the revision petitions or review petitions, as the case may be, could be heard and decided by a single member of Board of Revenue and he has competently heard and decided such petitions. This is not a case covered by subsection (2) of section 7 of the Act, because the said provisions of law deal with the class of the cases specified by the rules made by the Board, after approval of the Government. Thus, it can safely be said that single member of Board of Revenue was seized with the jurisdiction to hear the revision petitions and subsequently the review petitions by the petitioner and the orders recorded by the learned member were not coram non judice, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Ch. Ajayab Hussain's case 2001 SCR 545, that if a party submits before the jurisdiction of a Court and never raises the objection of lack of jurisdiction of that Court cannot turn around with a volte-face when the judgment is given against the party, to say that the Court hearing the case had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the same. Thus, in view of the verdict of the Supreme Court, it is settled by now that after submission of a party before the jurisdiction of a Court, such party is not allowed to turn around after the judgment is given against him and say that the Court had no jurisdiction. The petitioner herein challenged the order of the learned Revenue Commissioner before the Board of Revenue through a revision petition and after his failure, he brought two successive review petitions before the Board of Revenue. Thus, his act of submission before the Board of Revenue does not allow him to take a volte-face when the judgments have been given against him. The argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding jurisdiction, therefore, is meritless which is hereby overruled.
8. ' Coming to the point of scope of review petition before the Board of Revenue, it may be observe that the provisions, which deal with the scope of review petitions, have been provided in different enactments dealing with different subjects and its scope has also been provided under Order XLVII, rule 1 of C.P.C. Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1985 also provides its scope which goes on to say that any person aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board, if discovers a new and important point, or the evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or he could not produce it at the time when decree was passed or order was made, may move application for review of the previous order on the basis of fresh evidence. It further provides that a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient cause, the order made or the decree passed by the Board of Revenue may be reviewed. The powers conferred on Board of Revenue through section 8 of the Act would show that such powers are limited only to the extent that if a new ground or evidence is available, the Board may on an application, review its earlier order, if it appears justified under law or any error or mistake which appears on the face of record is subject to review by the Board of Revenue. But it does not confer power on the Board to review its incorrect decision on a particular issue or a question falling for determination in a case. The proposition regarding scope of review petition came before the Honourable Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Allah Ditta and other's case 1993 SCR 18 in which it has been held that incorrect or illegal decisions can never be a ground for review as to permit a review on the ground of such incorrectness would amount to granting the Court a jurisdiction to hear appeal against its own judgment. The learned Apex Court also held that a party to a lis could not be allowed to file review merely on the ground that the party conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of the case. The powers under review have to be confined within the four corners of the provisions dealing with the scope of review like section 8 of Board of Revenue Act and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C., according to which, the mistakes or errors apparent on the face of record any new ground or evidence providing sufficient cause could only be the ground for exercise of review. But no such ground has been made out for reviewing the impugned orders of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, while dealing with the revision petition and first review petition, considered the ground raised in the petition, while, during second review petition, the Board of Revenue arrived at the conclusion that the points raised before it could not be made basis for review of its earlier order. The argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by single Member Board of Revenue were illegal on the ground that the point of limitation and the question of determination of status and nature of property were not considered by the said member, as such, the decisions by the Board, being illegal, were likely to be set aside during second review petition and the learned Board of Revenue by not doing so acted illegally. This argument, when seen in its true perspective in view of verdict of the Supreme Court in Ch. Ajayab Hussain's case, has no validity, therefore, it is hereby repelled. The second review petition has rightly been disallowed in view of scope of review petition under law.
9. ' Even otherwise the petition has no case on its merits. The order of allotment in his favour, dated August 1, 1993, would show that the petitioner had already obtained allotment of a plot measuring 3 Marlas on ground rent lease and allotment in dispute is the second lease in his favour. The allotment of first plot is clear from the report by the revenue authorities on the basis of which first allotment has been made, therefore, allotment of second plot in view of 1st proviso to section 6 of the AJ&K Grant of Khalsa Land (Ground Rent and Lease) Rules, 1985, was not permissible, as one person is not entitled to be granted more than one plot for residential purpose.
10. ' Thus, in view of what has been observed hereinbefore, this writ petition, having no substance in it, is hereby dismissed.