DR. LIAQUAT ALI KHAN NIAZI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) - These are review petitions- against order dated 30.4.2004 passed by learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore. This single order disposes off above-mentioned review petitions.
3. Mr. Muhammad Irshad Chaudhry, Advocate, represented the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Advocate, represented the respondents. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the question for determination is whether rectangle Nos. 107, 108 and 109 (new) and 110, 111 and 112 (old) measuring 240 kanals, situated in Chak No. 107/TDA, Mauza Khokhar Israh, District Layyah was Abadi Deh. The matter was challenged in the Civil Court claiming that it was not Abadi Deh and it was determined so by the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1961, especially through Issue No. 2 that it was not Abadi Deh, and these findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.1963 and maintained by the High Court in R.S.A. No. 59 of 1985. These findings of facts duly recorded by the Civil Court being Court of ultimate jurisdiction were binding on the Revenue Authorities and these findings could not be ignored.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following authorities:-
(i) P.L.D. 1973, Lahore 207.
(ii) 1972 S.C.M.R. 322.
(iii) 1994 S.C.M.R. 1333.
6. Fard Taqseem, which was issued in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was of the year 1958 whereas the area proposedly allegedly pertained to year 1959.
The assertion that the Fard Taqseem was forged was also settled by the judgment dated 11.12.1985 delivered by the learned District Judge, In para 3 of the afore-said judgment it was clearly held that land measuring 240 Kanals had already been sold to the petitioners and suit had been decreed, It was further held that the afore-said Fard Taqseem in that case were valid documents. Under the circumstances the order dated 30.4.2004, needs review.
7. It was prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that order dated 30.4.2004, passed by the learned MBR (Colonies) may be reviewed and order dated 8.1.1999, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner may be set aside.
8. As far as review of order of Board of Revenue is concerned, relevant matter has been laid down in Section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which is reproduced as under:- "(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 ^me 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 sub-section (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order."
9. Thus a review under Section 8(1) can only be allowed where there is discovery of new and important matter or there is discovery of new evidence. Review has also been allowed where there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Review can also be made for any sufficient reason. After perusing the relevant record and hearing both the parties, I have reached the conclusion that order dated 28.4.2004 by the learned Member (Colonies) was not passed in accordance with law because the question for determination is whether Rectangle Nos. 107, 108 and 109 (new) and 110, 111 and 112 (old) measuring 240 kanals, situated in Chak No. 107/TDA, Mauza Khokhar Israh, District Layyah was Abadi Deh. The matter was challenged in the Civil Court claiming that it was not Abadi Deh and it was determined so by the learned Civil Court, vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1961, and these findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.1963 ahd maintained by the High Court in R.S.A. No. 59 of 1985.
These findings of facts duly recorded by the Civil Court being Court of ultimatejurisdiction were binding on the Revenue Authorities The assertion that the Fard Taqseem was forged was also settled by the judgment dated 11.12.1985 delivered by the learned District Judge.
10. Thus there is sufficient reason to review the impugned order.
11. The relevant authority on the subject is PLD 1985 Rev. 123, [Sindh], Elahi Bux and others v.
Muhammad Hashim and others, It says:- "Scope of review petition, held, could be made in terms of Section 8(1) of Board of Revenue, Act, 1957. Such terms being (i) discovery of new arid important matter or evidence; (ii) on account of mistake or error v apparent on face of record, and (iii) for any other sufficient reason."
11. Thus the review petitions are accepted and order dated 28.4.2004 passed by the Member (Colonies), is set aside. Order dated 8.1.1999 passed by Additional Commissioner is also set aside.
The judgment in this case was reserved on 19.3.2008, which is announced today. The parties may be informed through their respective counsel.
District Officer (Revenue), Layyah, the Revenue staff is directed to implement this order forthwith.