' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.--- Through this writ petition, petitioners have assailed the order, dated 29-1-2001 passed by Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab whereby he has reviewed the earlier order dated 8-12-1998 passed by another Member, Board of Revenue and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner with the direction to pass afresh order regarding the appointment of Lamberdar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Chak No.291/WB, situated in present Tehsil Dunyapur of District Lodhran consisted of 1589 Acres and there was only one post of Lambardar which was held by a person from Arain Community was in majority. In these circumstances, the petitioner initiated proceedings for creation of second post of Lambardar in the Chak in view of the area of the Chak and deprivation of Majority Community. As a result of the efforts of the petitioner second post of Lambardar was sanctioned for this Chak vide order of Commissioner,. Multan Division, Multan dated 8-8-1990. Applications were invited for the post of Lambardar in the above said Chak No.291/WB.' Petitioner was appointed as permanent Lambardar by the Deputy Commissioner, Lodhran on 13-3-1993. Khushi Muhammad and one Muhammad Fazal assailed the order of the Deputy Commissioner by filing appeal which was rejected by the learned Commissioner Multan Division on 27-1-1997. Respondent No.1 i.e. Khushi Muhammad filed revision against the order of the Commissioner before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by the Member Judicial-III, Board of Revenue on 8-12-1998. Respondent No.1 filed review petition against order dated 8-12-1998 which was accepted by the respondent No.2 i.e. Member Judicial-II, Board of Revenue, Punjab on 29-1-2009, hence, this writ petition.
3. This writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 9-3-2001. Operation of the impugned order dated 29-1-2001 was suspended.
' Notices were issued to the respondent No.1 but none has turned up. The process-server, namely, Muzaffar Abbas reported that respondent No.1/Khushi Muhammad was personally served and obtained the thumb-mark of the Khushi Muhammad and Allah liar, Lambardar on the notice.
Hence, he has been proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that case does not fall within the purview of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 for exercise of review powers by the respondent No.2; that there was no ground for review in terms of section 8; that through impugned order concurrent findings of facts recorded by the competent Courts of law were interfered; that alleged ground of interference was regarding holding of land by the respondents; this fact has been agitated in the previous proceedings; that entire holding of the respondent No.1 was mortgaged at the relevant time when the Revenue offices examined and decided the case of appointment of Lambardar in 1992-1993, hence, mere fact that property of the respondent No.1 was redeemed from the mortgage cannot be a ground for interference.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Language used in section 8 of the Act, section 114 and Order XLVII of C.P.C. Is synonymous. In order to understand the controversy involved in the matter and scope of review, section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957) is reproduced here:--- "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 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 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 subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree order."
'. Plain reading of the section indicates that grounds for review are discovery of new and important evidence which was not in the knowledge to the party, such evidence is not produced at the time of the decree or order. Scope of review is very limited. It is not permitted to reopen the matter, jurisdiction of review can only be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the statute. It can only be invoked, when new and important matter or evidence is discovered, which was not available on the previous occasion when order was passed or it can be availed, when order was made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record. Reliance is placed on Khan Muhammad and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others PLD 2006 Lah.
615. It is settled principle of law that review cannot be made only for the reason that another view can be taken on the record. It has been held in Muhammad Ashraf v. Dost Muhammad and others 1981 SCMR 383. Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others 2007 SCMR 755 that succeeding member though competent to review, cannot review the order passed by his predecessor simply because another view could be taken in the case of Muhammad Amin v. M.B.R. 1992 CLC 2338 it was held that where ground on which review was sought relates to the merits of the case, case could not be permitted to be reopened in exercise of power under section 8 of the Act.
' In section 8 words "for any other sufficient reason" to be read "ejusdem generic" (of the same thing or nature) with proceedings words laying down ground of review ... Review is not available for every cause but restricted to cause relatable to circumstances as discovery of view an important matter or some apparent mistake on face of record. Requirement of review is that some errors must be so manifest and so clear that no Court to permit such errors to remain on the record and it must be error, which must be floating on the surface of the record. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Din and 2 others v. Muhammad Amin and 8 others PLD 1994 SC 288, Khan. Muhammad and others v.
Member, Board of Revenue and others, PLD 2006 Lah. 615 and Nasim Ahmad v. Board of Revenue PLD 1979 Note 82 at P.57 in present case. .
7. Admittedly petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 13-3-1993 which indicates that he has visited the Chak and conducted inquiry proceeding in open assembly of the inhabitants which shows that he has taken meticulous care in the matter.
Order of the Deputy Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 27-1-1997 and Board of Revenue on 8-12-1998. . These findings recorded by the officers of the revenue hierarchy were interfered by the respondent No.2/Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of a review jurisdiction. Highest hierarchy of the revenue department have appointed petitioner as Lambardar and gave findings of fact, which was interfered through impugned order without any legal justification. Impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is not only violative of law as well as the established principle laid down by the august Supreme Court. This Court can correct any error on the part of the revenue officer. I am guided by the dictum laid down in a case titled as Naik Muhammad v. Mazhar Ali and others 2007 SCMR 112 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Member, Board of Revenue and 4 others 1996 SCMR 1581. It has been held in case of Haji Noor PLD 1991 SC 531 it has been observed as follows:--- .
"The Board of Revenue at the apex of the Revenue hierarchy is charged with the statutory duty of interpreting the law, of applying it to individual cases coming up before it and laying down the law for the subordinate in the hierarchy to follow. Any error on its part in understanding the law, in applying it or in laying down the law can and must be corrected in the constitutional jurisdiction. If it is left uncorrected, it will result in subverting the rule of law."
8. . The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed, order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the Member (Judl-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab this review is set aside, resultantly, order dated 8-12-1998 passed by the Member Board of Revenue in revision petition is restored. Parties will bear their cost. .