' This petition is directed against an order dated 31-3-1980 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue whereby he accepted revision petition of respondent No, 2 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1979 of the learned Additional Commissioner, Sargodha.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that one Mst. Sultan Bibi alienated agricultural land measuring about 153 kanals and 17 marlas situated in village Mooch Pacca, Tehsil and District Mianwali vide Mutation No, 10166 sanctioned on 26-3-1973 in favour of Ghulam Qasim Khan respondent No, 2.
The petitioner claimed that out of the above-referred land he was in possession of about 37 kanals and 6 marlas as tenant. He instituted suit for possession through pre-emption before the Collector, District Mianwali. His suit was dismissed on 8-6-1978 but his appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha was accepted on 6-1-1979 and his suit in respect of 37 kanals and 6 marlas was decreed.
3. Respondent No, 2 feeling aggrieved filed a revision petition before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to allow the respondent No, 2, to bring on record certain documents while deciding revision petition. It was submitted that he was required to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment under revision. It was argued that respondent No, 2 did not file any application for additional evidence nor any order permitting him to place on record the documents was passed.
The petitioner had no knowledge or notice of the documents brought on the file, and for that reason, he was deprived to adduce evidence in rebuttal. It was pointed out that the documents brought on the record were in the knowledge of the respondent No, 2 and were not produced before the Collector or before the first Appellate Court. He could not be allowed to fill up gaps which occurred in his case by bringing documents on the file. It was next stated, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, not only admitted those documents into evidence but relied on them in the impugned judgment. He relied on Ralik Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner and another (1) in support of his case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 2 on the other hand stated that the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue was legal and consistent to the material brought on the file. It was stated that in this case the learned Member, Board of Revenue himself directed the respondent No, 2 to produce documents to prove that the alienor was related to the alienee and there was sufficient reason to alienate the property in dispute by way of gift.
' Learned counsel, however could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that documents were brought on the file without an application for additional evidence and that the petitioner was not provided opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions by the learned counsel for the parties with reference to documents on the file. It is true that the learned Member, Board of Revenue allowed production of several documents on the file in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is clear from the record that neither any application was moved by the respondent No, 2 to lead additional evidence nor an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to produce documentary evidence in rebuttal. In these circumstances, the question as to whether the learned Member, Board of Revenue was competent to allow production of additional evidence in revision petition without permitting the opposite side to lead evidence in rebuttal requires determination. The revisional powers exerciseable by officers against the orders passed under M. L. R. No, 115(7) or under section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, are limited to examine their legality or propriety, there is hardly any scope for permitting a' party to lead additional evidence which was not before the trial Court when the order under revision was passed. In any case it was incumbent upon him to have allowed the petitioner to adduce evidence in rebuttal. The impugned order therefore suffered from material illegality and being in excess of jurisdiction is declared as of no legal effect.
7. In the result this petition succeeds and the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is declared to be of no legal effect. The case is remitted to the learned Member, Board of Revenue for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the observation made above and dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1973 SC 24' {{FOOT NOTE}}