' IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The petitioners along with others were issued the entitlement certificates for allotment of alternative land under the Re-settlement of Displaced Persons of Pakistan Atomic Energy Complex Scheme dated 25-6-1976 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore in lieu of their land surrendered by them in Mouza Khula, Tehsil Piplan, District Mianwali. The certificates were required to be verified under the direction of the Court. According to the Memo No,5843-75/2547-CI dated 25-6-1976, those who were owners of 16 kanals land of "Sailabi" or four kanals of irrigated land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Were eligible for allotment of alternative land. The petitioners and the other holders of certificates had become the owners of the acquired land through a consent decree dated 15-10-1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mianwali, whereas the notification, under section 4 of the LAC, 1894 was issued on. 14-12-1973. The DOR, Mianwali vide order dated 23- 7-2004 declared the petitioners and others ineligible for the allotment of alternative land. The certificates already issued to them were cancelled. The appeals preferred by the petitioners and others were dismissed by the learned Executive District Officer, Revenue vide order dated 24-10- 2007. The petitioners and others filed RORs which have been dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore vide order dated 26-11-2010.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are illegal and are not sustainable in law; that the petitioners are exclusive owners in possession of the land in question; that the petitioners after putting in the constant efforts and endless toiling converted the barren land into cultivable one. The revenue hierarchy has not appreciated the petitioners' hardwork and efforts; that the petitioners have been depositing the instalments due and are ready to pay any amount yet due at the market price; that the case of the petitioners is at par with that of many others who filed the writ petitions and were directed by this court to pay the market price; that the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue is not a speaking order and does not conform even to the lowest standard of judicial pronouncement. He, relying on the cases reported as Mst. Daulat Bibi (represented by Legal Heirs) and 4 others v.
Multan Improvement Trust, Multan (PLD 1977 Lahore 665), Haq Nawaz Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (1992 SCMR 993) and Muhammad Ilyas Baig v. Government of the Punjab (2010 CLC 1432) argues that mere issuance of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 does not divest the owners of the property from their rights and the land in consequence of the said notification vests in the Government only after the possession is taken over and not earlier.
Further argues that the powers of review are not available under the Colony Laws and even if available, the same could not be exercised after the elapse of 25 years that too when the earlier order was passed consciously. Relies on the cases reported as Noor Hassan Awan v. Muhammad Ashraf (2001 SCMR 367) and Ahmad and 5 others v. The State (2002 SCMR 1611); that the petitioners are allottees under a permanent scheme while the respondents Nos.4 to 13 (iii) are lessees under the temporary scheme, therefore, the petitioners have a preferential right over the respondents.
Relies on the cases reported as Nadeem Butt v. Special Court Constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Presided by Sardar Mashkoor, Ahmad), Camp At Dharampura, Lahore and another (2000 SCMR 1086) and Abdul Khaliq and 8 others and Assistant Collector/Notified Officer, District Bakhar and 11 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 521).
3.. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.4 to 13 contends that some of the said respondents are the allottees and others are the legal heirs of the allottees of the land in question vide order dated 28-4-2011 passed by the DCO, Khushab, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities shall be maintained and the petition be dismissed.
4. The learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned orders and contends that the review order was passed after obtaining the required sanction from the competent authority and the impugned orders by the revenue authorities enjoy the sanction of law.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
6. The petitioners had become owners of the land on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 3-9- 1973. A decree dated 15-10-1980 was passed in favour of the petitioners. All the rights enjoyed by the judgment-debtors devolved on the petitioners as the decree-holders from the date of the agreement to sell. The mere issuance of the notification under. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not divest the original owners as the notification simply expresses the need of the land and specifies public purpose. The land is not vested in the Government unless the possession has been taken over. Reliance is placed on PLD 1977 Lahore 665 and 1992 SCMR 993. The power of the review provided under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is limited in scope and can only be exercised on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the revenue officer or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed. No such new piece of evidence or matter has been hinted at in the impugned order dated 23-7-2004 passed by the respondent-EDO(R). The order under review was a deliberate decision with application of judicial mind. The circumstances justifying the review were not available in the instant case that too after the lapse of 25 years. The order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue is not a speaking order and does not conform to the standard prescribed by law. As far the rights of respondents Nos.4 to 13 are concerned, they are the allottees under the temporary scheme. The rights of the petitioners who are allottees under the