' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 18-8- 2004 passed by Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Brief Facts of the case are that by virtue of operation of Thal Development Acts, 1949, the land measuring 619 kanals was acquired from the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and pro forma respondents under section 21 of the said Act. Thereafter, it was adjusted in favour of the petitioners and pro forma respondents under section 36 of the same Act by Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Bhakkar on 24-3-1981 in Chak No,210/TDA and 211/TDA, Mausa Dagar Kotli Shumali. On reconsideration, Member Colony vide ROR No,1177 of 1982 decided on 15-12-1983 that Khasra No, '619, Killas Nos. 8, 9 and 10, measuring 16 Kanals, 4 marlas, be adjusted. So the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Bhakkar on re-consideration adjusted Khasra No,619/8-9-10 measuring 16 kanals, 4 marlas in favour of Allah Bakhsh, Dildar and Suddha predecessors-in- interest of the petitioners and pro forma respondents vide order dated 12-1-1985.
3. The respondent No,2 on-27-6-1994 filed an appeal and challenged the adjustment order before EACO contending that respondent No,2 is in possession of suit-land, therefore, adjustment order be set aside and respondent No,2 be declared as absolute owner and in exclusive possession of Khasra No,619. The appeal was dismissed on 18-8-1994. Respondent No,2 assailed the said order before Additional Commissioner, Sargodha who vide his order dated 8-10-1995 dismissed the appeal of respondent No,2. Respondent No,2 in third count filed a revision petition before Mr. Muhammad Zia-ur-Rehman, learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore who dismissed the same vide order dated 19-2-2002. After concurrent findings of three Courts below, respondent No,2 filed a Review Petition No,189 of 2002 before Mr. Shaukat Iqbal, Member (Judicial- II), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore on 24-8-2002 who allowed the review petition vide order dated 18-8-2004. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned. Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue erred in law while allowing the review petition because none of the grounds to review the order of Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore was available with respondent No, 1.
He further contends that learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue has not taken into consideration the limitation and has allowed the time-barred review petition which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further contends that respondent No,2 is in illegal possession over the suit-land, therefore, this writ petition be allowed, the impugned order be set aside and order passed by learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue in revision petition be restored.
5. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed the writ petition contending that the land in dispute belongs to the Provincial Government and respondent No,2 is in possession of suit- land. He further contends that the possession of respondent No,2 may be confirmed from series of copies of register Haqdaran Zameen.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced from all corners and have perused the record available on file.
7. Perusal of record shows that the land in question was confirmed under adjustment scheme in the name of Muhammad Iqbal by the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Bhakkar on 12-1-1985 in presence of representative of respondent No,2 but he never challenged this order at any appropriate forum and as a result, Mutation No, 636 was attested on 19-4-1995. Thereafter, respondent No,2 challenged the order through a miscellaneous petition addressed to EACO/Collector, Bhakkar but it was dismissed. Against this order, respondent No,2 filed a time- barred appeal but could not explain the delay to the satisfaction of that court. So, the appeal was dismissed being time-barred and the learned appellate Court while dismissing the Appeal recorded that respondent No,2 failed to offer plausible explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
Respondent No,2 then filed ROR No,173 of 1996 which was dismissed by Mr. Muhammad Zia-ur- Rehman, learned Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 19-2- 2002. Against the order dated 19-2-2002 in ROR No, 173 of 1996, respondent No,2 filed a Review Petition No,189 of 2002, before learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide order dated 18-8-2004 allowed to review petition and set aside the concurrent findings of three Courts below.
8. Period for filing a review petition has been provided 90 days. Order can only be reviewed if a review is maintainable from the discovery of new and important matters of 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 order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason required to obtain a review. But in the instant case, no such matter was in question before learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue who has also ignored that the initial appeal filed by respondent No,2 was badly barred by time. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 18-8-2004 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore is set aside and order dated 19-2-2002 passed by Mr. Muhammad Zia-ur-Rehman, Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore is confirmed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.