' SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.--- Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30-1-2013 passed by Muhammad Ilyas, Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab whereby the order dated 28-12- 2011 passed by Sardar Muhammad Akram Javed, Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab rendered in ROR No,194 of 2011 was reviewed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that dispute about partition of land of Joint Khata No,50 between petitioners as well as respondents Nos. 5 to 14, who are co- sharers in Joint Khata, was going on. On the application of present petitioners, Tehsildar Vehari vide order dated 15-8-2007 accepted the application, prepared the wandajat of the parties and implemented it in the Revenue Record. District Officer Revenue, Vehari, accepted appeal of respondents Nos.5 to 14 vide his order dated 7-9-2009. Being not satisfied of above said order, the petitioners assailed the same by filing appeal before Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari which was dismissed vide order dated 31-1-2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab who accepted the appeal and set aside the orders dated 31-1-2011 and 7-9-2009 and remanded the case to the District Collector, Vehari vide order dated 28-12-2011 with the direction to decide the case afresh strictly in accordance with law after hearing contention of the parties on the question of partition. Thereafter respondent No,4 filed a review petition against the order dated 28-12-2011 and the learned Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab accepted the said review petition, set aside the order dated 28-12-2011 and the order dated 7-9-2009 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Vehari was upheld. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the learned Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab on its face value in purported exercise of his power is clearly without jurisdiction. Further argued that petition of review before the learned Member Board of Revenue was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, he could neither entertain the review petition nor the same could be accepted without crossing the hurdle of limitation. It is further argued that the scope provided by review was of a limited nature and until it is shown that there was an error apparent on the face of record, the power could not be exercised and the indulgence shown by the learned Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue Punjab is patently illegal and without lawful authority. Adds that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of factual arguments which is not the ground of review.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order under challenge and contended that it suffers from no such infirmity; that the Mutation No,3350 is based upon fraud, mis-representation from Khata No,50 in which Faisal Hayat has already alienated his holding and the Patwari Halqa by tampering Mutation No,2437 has sanctioned the above mutation to justify the transaction while the Mutation No,2437 dated 12-1-2002 was already implemented in the current Jamabandi; that the petitioner No,1 fictitiously shown to have purchased land measuring 114-Kanal from Faisal Hayat Khakwani from Khewat No,35 which was neither in possession of Faisal Hayat Khakwani nor the possession was delivered to petitioner No,1 by him.
Petitioner No,1 is close relative of the then Halqa Patwari Muhammad Younis who committed fraud with the respondent and changed the Khewat No,28 into 35 by cutting and over writing on the mutation, hence the order dated 28-11-2011 was rightly reviewed by the learned Member (Judicial- III); Board of Revenue by accepting the review petition which does not warrant interference by this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that Shehzad Ahmad respondent No,4 filed a complaint dated 5-1- 2008 for taking necessary action against the delinquents on account of tampering with Revenue Record/Mutation No,2437 dated 12-1-2002 and review of Mutation No, 3350 dated 11-5-2006. On the said complaint an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy District Officer (Registration), Vehari in compliance with the order dated 2-4-2008 passed by the Districts Officer (Revenue), Vehari. Vide order dated 7-9-2009; District Officer (Revenue), Vehari passed the following order:- "I am of the view that the request of the complainant is genuine and the respondents have not come up with clean hands. Therefore, the implementation of Mutation No,2437 dated 12-1-2002 with regard to purchase of land measuring 83-Kanals 16- marlas out of Khewat No,28 and land measuring 64-Kanals 5-marlas out of Khewat No,36 by the complainant is kept in tact in the revenue record i,e, Register Haqdarain Zamin and Register Girdawari. Necessary permission for the correction/review of mutation No,3350 dated 11-5-2006 and subsequent mutations, if needed, is hereby accorded. Muhammad Ramzan, Patwari submitted an application for fresh inquiry, therefore, a regular departmental inquiry under PEEDA Act, 2006, against Muhammad Younis Bhatti, Patwari Halqa now acting Kanungo, Muhammad Ramzan exPatwari Halqa and Abdul Jabbar; ex-Kanungo Halqa now acting in NTO Branch, as per report of the Deputy District Officer (Registration), Vehari is ordered appointing Mehr Amir Bakhsh, Deputy District Officer (Coordination), Vehari as an Enquiry Officer. The Bills clerk (Revenue) NTO Branch is directed to prepare a separate inquiry file and put up the case accordingly to proceed further in the matter".
7. Munir Ahmad and others challenged the said order before Executive District Officer (Revenue), Vehari who vide order dated 31-1-2011 dismissed the appeals. The petitioner assailed the said order before Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab (Sardar Muhammad Akram Javed) who vide order dated 28-12-2011 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the District Collector, Vehari with the direction to decide the case afresh strictly in accordance with law after hearing contention of both the parties on the question of partition. Thereafter Shehzad Ahmad respondent No,4 filed a review petition under section 8 of Board of Revenue Act, 1957 for review of order dated 28-12-2011. The learned Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab (Muhammad Ilyas) accepted the review petition, set aside the impugned order dated 28-12-2011 by maintaining the order passed by the District Officer (Revenue) Vehari.
8. The order dated 28-12-2011 is a remand order and Shehzad Ahmad respondent No,4 cannot be termed as an aggrieved person. In the light of said order, District Collector, Vehari was directed to decide the case afresh strictly in accordance with law after hearing contentions of both the parties on the question of partition.
9. Section 8 of Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, confers power of review on the Member, Board of Revenue subject to certain conditions contained in that section which reads as under:-- "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 (for any other sufficient reasons) 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."
10. It is significant to mention here that the scope of exercise of power of review in terms of Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. And section 8 of Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 was limited and interference would be made if the court was satisfied on discovery of new and important matter which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge or could not be produced by concerned party at the time when decree was passed or order made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason.
11The power conferred upon the Member, Board of Revenue under section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 did not empower the successor Member to re-hear the matter on merit because he was not sitting in appeal or in a revisional jurisdiction to correct the error in the order passed by the predecessor Member. The power could be exercised solely and only where there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of record.
12.In view of the above discussed position, I find that the Member, Board of Revenue while passing the review order had not assigned sufficient reasons, hence the same being not in consonance with the provisions of law and not sustainable in law is declared to have been passed illegally, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 30-1-2013 is set aside and that of order dated 28-12-2011 passed by Sardar Muhammad Akram Javed Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue Punjab is restored. The District Collector, Vehari is directed to decide the case afresh strictly in accordance with law after hearing the contention of the parties. The parties would be at liberty to raise any objection before District Collector, Vehari. 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.