WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER, (JUDICIAL-III).---This review petition has been filed against order dated 18.07.2012, passed by this Court.
2. Preliminary arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case and has been passed without appreciating contention of the petitioners. Moreover, the controversy regarding adna and aala malik was not understood in its true perspective while passing the impugned order. The land was acquired by TDA and question of adna and aala malik; was not settled. The petitioners were held entitled for 536-kanals, 2-marlas of land. But, through the impugned order this aspect of the case was also not considered. Vital rights of the petitioners are at stake, therefore, the case should have been decided on merit. Finally, it was prayed that the review petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that order dated 18.07.2012 was passed by learned predecessor of this court after hearing contention of the parties and consultation of record. The scope of review is very limited. The petitioner did not raise any new ground in the instant review petition its contention or the petitioner was well taken by predecessor of this court during adjudication of revision petition. No irregularity or illegality has been committed in order dated 18.07.2012, which is valid and lawful in the eyes of law. Therefore, the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed. Finally, it was prayed that the review petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. Brief of the matter is that learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bhakkar, vide order dated (sic) adjusted land measuring 200 kanals, situated in Chak No,8/TDA. In favour of Abdul Ghafoor etc. On adjustment file No,48 of village Daggar Qureshi. As per such allotment, mutation No,95 was sanctioned.
Subsequently, the Revenue Officer Circle moved case for grant of permission to review the said mutation.
' After obtaining sanction for review, he cancelled mutation No,95. The petitioners assailed the said order by way of writ petition before Hon'ble Lahore High Court Lahore. The case was remanded to learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bhakkar for decision afresh. On the remand order, the Assistant Commissioner, Bhakkar maintained order dated 11.12.1998 of his predecessor and also restored mutation No,95 whereby area measuring 200 kanals was adjusted in favour of the present respondents through adjustment File No,48. The then appellants (including respondents) filed appeals against these orders before learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, who after hearing the parties accepted the appeals and set aside orders dated 11.12.1998 and 07.06.2001 of learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bhakkar, and remanded the case to learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, for decision afresh vide order dated 17.12.2002.
6. The above order was assailed by way of revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was accepted vide order dated 24.07.2003 and case was remanded to learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Bhakkar, for decision afresh. In post remand proceedings, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) accepted the appeals and resumed the land vide order dated 16.09.2004., Feeling aggrieved by that order, Mst. Ghulam Fatima etc. The present respondents preferred four revision petitions before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, which were accepted vide order dated 23.12.2008. The said order was assailed in the Hon'ble, Lahore High Court Lahore through WO Petition No,5674/2009, which were accepted vide order dated 11.06.2009 and the matter was remanded to this court for fresh decision. The operative para of the order is as under:-- ' After having argued the case at some length, the learned counsel for the private respondents has requested that he has no objection to the acceptance of this petition and get the case remanded back to the Member Judicial-III Board of Revenue on setting aside the impugned order passed by him for decision afresh of the Revision Petition on merits and in accordance with law encompassing all the material points raised before it. The learned Law Officer however submits that the Provincial Government as such has no contest in the matter as it is between 'the private respondents who are admittedly represented through their learned counsel. Order accordingly.
' Thereafter, in the light of above, the writ petition in hand is accepted, the impugned order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the learned Member Judicial-III is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Member with the direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and decide the Revision Petition under reference afresh on merits and in accordance with law in the above terms. The said petition shall be deemed to be pending before him for disposal afresh positively within period of two months from the date of receipt of his order.
' The parties are directed to appear before the learned Member Judicial-III on 22.06.2009".
7. Accordingly, the revision petitions were accepted by this court vide order dated 18.07.2012. The operative para of the order is as under:-- ' "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the revision petitions, written arguments of both the parties, orders of the lower courts, contents of remand order and record available on case file. After going through this whole exercise, I have come to the conclusion that the revision petitions are worth acceptance. This conclusion is based upon following reasons:- ' From the perusal of available record, it is revealed that the entitlement of the petitioners was worked out much before passing the order dated 11.12.1998. The said adjustment was not upset even till today. The order dated 11.12.1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, , Bhakkar, , on adjustment file No,48 was in continuation of the adjustment worked out since long.
From the perusal of available record, it is revealed that no one raised objection on the adjustment worked out in favour of the petitioners and they have no locus standi and cause of action to assail the subsequent orders which were passed for compliance of the adjustment in the revenue record.
' In pursuance of the order dated 11.12.1998, mutation No,95 was also sanctioned in favour of the present petitioners. The said mutation was sanctioned for an area measuring 200 kanals. There is still deficiency in the entitlement of the present petitioners because the above said area is less than their actual entitlement.
' From the perusal of adjustment file No,48, it is revealed that the adjustment was worked out in the year 1960. The subsequent proceedings were for just implementations of the said adjustment. The Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, upset the above said adjustment without any legal justification. In the impugned order, he set aside the impugned mutation but he failed to understand the chequred history of the case and background on the basis of which the impugned mutation was sanctioned. The full detail regarding adjustment in favour of the petitioners is available in the impugned file No,48. In any case, the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, was not competent to upset the entitlement of the petitioners because the Thal Development Authorities adjusted the impugned land after thorough investigation and checking the entitlement of the petitioners. The adjustment worked out on behalf of the TDA in favour of the present petitioners is still intact but the subsequent mutation was set aside by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, without applying judicial independent mind. He failed to understand the legal status of the case as well as the entitlement of the parties.
' The respondents have no locus standi and cause of action against the impugned land adjusted in favour of the present petitioners according to the terms and conditions of TDA Act. From the perusal of record, it has been established that the adjustment was worked out according to the entitlement of the present petitioners. The respondents assailed the said adjustment on flimsy grounds and they also failed to establish their vested right on the suit land.
' The learned counsel for the respondents have failed to defend the impugned order. The arguments submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners are forceful in all respects. From the perusal of para 4 of the impugned order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, dated 16.09.2004, it is revealed that the said officer pass the order without mentioning any solid reason. In this para he resumed the land in favour of the state and failed to consider the vested interest of the present petitioners. It is further revealed that he also violated the provisions of remand order dated 24.07.2003 of the then Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab.
' In the light of the above reasons, the revision petitions are accepted and the order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar, dated 16.09.2004, is hereby set aside and the orders of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, , Bhakkar, dated 11.12.1998 and 07.06.2000, are hereby restored. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Assistant Commissioner/Collector Bhakkar, for necessary compliance. The case files shall be consigned to the record room after due compilation/page marking".
8. During arguments, it was contended that the impugned allotment has been made under the provisions of Thal Development Authority under the provision of this court, there is no provision of "Review"_ available and so review is not competent. In support of such contention reliance was placed upon 1993 CLC 589, which reads as under:-- ' "The Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules 1973, R.7---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.1---No power of review vests in Authority under Thal Development Act, 1949 or Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973---Provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, could not be pressed into service regarding power of review---Proceedings under Thal Development Authority (Colonization)
(Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973 are relatable to appeals and revisions and procedural provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 could be invoked in relation thereto---Power of review being conspicuously absent from the Thal Development Act, 1949 and Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973, exercise of such powers by Authority in cancelling allotment of plot in favour of plaintiff was not warranted----Right or power of, review being creation of statute could not be exercised unless specifically provided under the law".
9. The petitioners could not resist such contention. So, in the light of above, it is established that the instant review petition is not competent and the same is dismissed being not maintainable. The impugned order dated 18.07.2012, passed by this Court is upheld.