' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 11 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 the petitioner has called in question the order dated 14-2-2009 passed by the Chairman, PCBL through which he has rejected the petitioner's application for issuance of NOC with regard to the land measuring 201 kanals, 6 marlas along with Dera and Tube- Well situated at Mauza Spawat and 64 kanals, 11 marlas along with Dera and Tube-Well situated at Mouza Kot Mojdin, Tehsil and District Gujrat. .
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner had been working as Manager in National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation and during his service tenure some irregularities were seen by the authorities for which the petitioner was held responsible. In consequence thereof the petitioner was issued charge sheet on 15-8-1987 and he was directed to meet the loss of Rs,13,99,393 In compliance of the direction the petitioner had surrendered his house valuing Rs, 16,00,000 and transferred the house in favour of NICFC for the said amount. The aforesaid agriculture land measuring 265 kanals, 17 marlas was also got transferred by the petitioner in favour of the Corporation. The petitioner moved various application to the Corporation for release of the said land on the grounds that the land was only to be kept with the Corporation as security till the sale-deed of the house was to be executed in favour of the Corporation. After various litigation the then Chairman, PCBL vide order dated 9-2-2008 ordered the land to be given to the petitioner and his brothers subject to deposit of Rs,1,85,998 against his personal liability. The said amount has duly been paid by the petitioner and received by the PCBL. The petitioner also deposited Rs,33,000 for other charges upon transfer of land and asked the respondents to issue NOC but despite his efforts the PCBL has not acceded to his request and instead of issuing the NOC the petitioner was served a notice to appear before the Chairman, PCBL who after hearing the petitioner vide impugned order dated 14-2-2009 declared the land to be the assets of NICFC and rejected the petitioner's application. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter was finally closed after the order dated 9-2-2008 passed by the then Chairman, PCBL which was passed after hearing the parties and the petitioner duly complied with the same, the incumbent Chairman had no authority under the law to review the order passed by his predecessor. The order dated 9-2-2008 had attained finality as the PCBL had not questioned the same before any higher forum through any appeal. The order passed by the learned Chairman was based on surmises and conjectures viz non-speaking, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, without taking into consideration the available record and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. In support of his argument the learned counsel relies on an order dated 20-7-2007 passed in Petition No, 274-C of 2004 by my learned brother Mian Hamid Farooq, J., the then learned Cooperative Judge whereby in similar circumstances, the petition was accepted and a review order was set aside.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for PCBL contends that the stance of the petitioner that the property in question was taken as a security is baseless. As a matter of fact it was duly registered in the name of PCBL after fulfilling all the requisite formalities and the same cannot be given back to the petitioner without the decree of any competent court of law. The petitioner was given an opportunity to bring all his proofs before the Chairman but he failed to provide the same to the Chairman.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The petitioner has raised a legal issue in this petition which is to the effect that vide order dated 9-2-2008 the then Chairman of the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation declared the petitioner entitled for the transfer of land measuring 265 kanals, 17 marlas thereby directing the issuance of NOC in his favour and his two brothers for transfer of land in dispute subject to payment of liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs,1,83,998 along with 5% liquidation charges as such, it being a past and closed transaction, the impugned order dated 14-9-2009 passed by.The Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation is nullity in the eyes of law as the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation is not vested any power of review. It is well-settled by now that the right of review is a substantive right and not a matter of procedure and no court/tribunal possesses the inherent powers to review its decree or order, unless such a power is expressly given by the statute. Reference is respectfully made to the cases of Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others (1991 SCM R 2307), S.A. Rizvi v. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another (1986 SCM R 965), Muzaffar Ali v.
Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 SC 94) and Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1).
' In the light of the afore quoted-case-law I am of the considered I c view that since under the provisions of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, no such power of review is conferred upon the Chairman, Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation as such he has no jurisdiction to exercise power of review. Since the controversy between the parties was settled by the Chairman Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation in his order dated 9-2-2008, in view of the judicial verdict given by the Judicial Officer ill his judgment dated 3-8-1999, which attained finality as the same was not challenged in the higher forum by anyone, therefore, the Chairman Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation was not empowered and competent to review the said order. In such circumstances the impugned order dated 14-2-2009 is without jurisdiction as per the dictum laid down in the case of Abdul Hakeem and another v. Khalid Wazeer (2003 SCM R 1501) the relevant portion of which reads as under:-- "Review proceedings could not partake of re-hearing of a decided case----Review could not be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if same was available at the time of hearing of trial, appeal or revision, as the case might be---Ground not taken or raised at such earlier stages could not be allowed to be raised in review proceedings."
7. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it is an admitted & fect that the petitioner was serving as Manager in the National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation (Defunct Corporation). On pinpointing of certain irregularities the competent authority held him responsible in consequence of which the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 15-8-1987 to which he submitted reply. However, he was held responsible for the loss of Rs,13,99,393 without holding an inquiry and he was directed to meet the loss of aforesaid amount. In lieu thereof the petitioner surrendered the house of the value of Rs,16,00,000 which was owned by his wife. Prior to the execution of transfer deed-sale deed relating to the house of the wife of the petitioner, agriculture land measuring 265 kanals 17 marlas situated in Mouza Kot Mojdin and Mouza Spawat, District Gujrat was transferred by the petitioner and his two brothers to the said Corporation as security. Thereafter the NICFC was declared undesirable whereafter the matter was taken by the Judicial Officer, Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation, Lahore who vide his order dated 3-9-1999 held as under:-- ' The above narration of facts shows that Mr. Sharif Sindhu:--
(1) was charge-sheeted for embezzlement/misappropriation of Rs,14,99,273.
(2) Accepted further liability of Rs, 1,58,642.
(3) Mortgaged 265 kanals of agriculture land in favour of CFC.
(4) Mortgaged his/his wife's house in favour of the CFC.
(5) Value of the house was estimated as Rs,18,96,000 by a Government agency in October, 1986.
(6) The agricultural land was not redeemed by CFC despite possession of the house having been taken over by it on 12-11-1986.
(7) CFC's possession of the properties/securities is accepted and acknowledged by CFC in the charge-sheet, dated 15-8-1987 served by it on Mr. Sindhu.
' The CFC, having taken possession of the house on 12-11-1986, should have adjusted at least the accounts and loans mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 15-8-1987. The additional liabilities accepted by Mr. Sindhu on his own should also have been settled, if the valued of the house as accepted by CFC allowed such an adjustment.
' In the circumstances, it is hereby directed that the Recovery Wing and/or the Accounts Wing shall reconcile all the accounts included in the charge-sheet dated 15-8-1987 against the cost/price of the house, possession of which was taken over by CFC on 12-11-1986. For this purpose, the value of the house as accepted by the CFC will be taken as the base. If after adjustment of the said account/loans as on 12-11-1986, none balance is left, the additional liabilities as accepted by Mr. Sindhu shall also be adjusted there against. If the value of the house falls shot of the liabilities as on 12-11-1986 as assessed by the PCB, Mr, Sindhu shall be liable to pay the same as a loan due from him, with markup levied on the loans of NICFC and liquidation charges as per policy of PCBL. The land measuring 265 kanals which was mortgaged to the CFC will be redeemed as per the policy on the subject.
' Mr. Sindhu shall submit his petition to the concerned authorities of PCBL along with all the relevant documents and justification to the PCBL for seeking adjustment as recommended in this order. He shall also be liable to produce any additional document/proof if demanded by PCBL."
' On the basis of aforesaid verdict by the Judicial Officer, the then Chairman of the Punjab Liquidation Board vide order dated 9-2-2008 held the petitioner and his brother entitled for retransfer of the land in question. The said order also remained unchallenged but surprisingly the new incumbent Chairman of the Punjab Cooperative Board forLiquidation on the application of the petitioner for issuance of NOC for retransfer of the aforesaid land refused to issue the same by holding that the property/land measuring 265 kanals, 17 marlas in no way is related with the applicant's liability as that had been throughout the assets of the defunct NICFC as reflected in the Asset Register and related papeRs, The stance of the Chairman, Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation that the land in question is not related with the liability of Mr. Sindhu is against the record for the reason that the sale deed which was executed by the petitioner and his brothers in favour of the NICFC in the year 1986 has reference therein that the same is being transferred for payment of loan. The observation of the Chairman, Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation is also rebutable from the fact that the Sub-Registrar who registered the sale deed written on the back of said sale deed that no payment was made before him, as such, the sale deed without consideration is no sale deed in the eyes of law as there is a reference of loan liability mentioned in the said mortgaged deed. Even the fact of mortgaging the land in question is apparent from the charge-sheet served on the petitioner in the year 1987. In such circumstances, even on merits the stand taken by the petitioner that he and his brothers had given the aforesaid land to the NICFC through registered sale-deed dated 22-9-1986 has substance.
8. For what has been discussed above I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 14- 9-2009 passed by the Chairman, Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation and direct the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation to retransfer the land in question in the names of the petitioner and his brothers immediately.