' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--- This review petition has been filed against order dated 23.12.2014, passed by this court, whereby the revision petition of the present petitioner was dismissed.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Tehsildar AC-1, Burewala did not visit the site before framing wandas and this point has not been considered before deciding revision petition.
Learned lower courts has committed material illegality and irregularity while approving the impugned wandas. The impugned order is non speaking order and passed in a hurried manner. He further contended that vide impugned order two wandas framed by the Tehsildar has been upheld, whereas area falling under roads etc. Has not been considered and whole of such area has been placed in the partition of the present petitioner and prayed that the case be remanded to Tehsildar to decide the same afresh.
5(sic). I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief facts of the case are that Faiz Ahmed etc. The present respondents filed an application before Tehsildar AC-I for partition of land of joint Khata. Upon the application of Muhammad Iqbal (the present petitioner) dated 19.01.2006. Tehsildar/AC-I, Burewala vide order dated 09.03.2006 pended the case till the decision from the civil court. Muhammad Yar etc. (co-sharers in joint khata) filed an appeal before learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, which was accepted vide order dated 10.05.2006. During the course of hearing before Tehsildar/AC-I, Burewala. Faiz Muhammad etc. The present respondent submitted an application for transfer of case to any other court and learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari vide order dated 8.11.2006 entrusted the case to learned Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Mailsi, who vide order dated 16.05.2007 approved two wandajats.
Muhammad Yar etc. (co-sharers in joint khata) filed an appeal before learned District Officer (Revenue), Vehari, who vide order dated 10.06.2009 directed the Tehsildar/AC-I, Burewala to decide the case afresh within two months. The Tehsildar, vide order dated 16.08.2010 approved two wandajat. Feeling aggrieved by the order, two appeals were filed before learned District Collector, Vehari, which were dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2012. The operative part of the order reads as under:- ' I have heard the arguments and perused the record of lower A court. It is established from the record that the Tehsildar/AC-1. Burewala, approved Wandajaat after observing all legal formalities keeping in view the principles on partition of joint holding. Actually respondents Nos.1 to 4 are owners of land measuring 57 Kanals 1 Marla but not a single Marla in their possession. The appellants are in possession of land over and above their entitlement and they intend to linger on the litigation on one pretext or the other. I find no solid reason to interfere with the impugned order which is upheld and both the appeals having no legal force are hereby dismissed.
6. Against this order, the present petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue). Multan Division, Multan, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2014. The concluding para of that order reads as under:-- "Arguments heard. Record perused. It is evident from the record that respondents Nos.1 to 4 are owners/co-shares of land measuring 57 kanals 1 Marla since 1983-84 but not a single Marla in their possession. The petitioners are in possession of land over and above their entitlement and they intend to linger on the litigation on one pretext or the other. The Tehsildar/Burewala, partitioned the joint holding in accordance with law, after observing, all legal formalities and keeping in view the principles of partition of joint holding. The lower court rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioners with full justification. I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders which are upheld and the revision petition, having no legal force, is hereby dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner filed revision petition before this court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2014. The operative part is as under:-- During instant proceedings, it was again established that the petitioner is in excess possession, whereas the respondents are not in possession of even an inch of the property, while they are owners of land in the joint khata measuring 57K-1M. This is the reason that the petitioner wants to prolong the matter as far as they can harvest the benefits of their unauthorized possession. This sole factor is the basis of impugned orders, which is quite justified. Hence, it is held that impugned order dated 28.05.2014, passed by learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan is quite lawful and merits no interference. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 28.05.2014, is upheld.
8. The perusal of impugned wandas shows that two wandas have been framed of to the parties.
The present petitioner falls in wanda No. 02, wherein 32 persons are co-sharers and their entitlement is 242K-9M. Out of such area, the petitioner is claiming that he is owner of land measuring 32-Kanals. It is noted that no other co-sharer has agitated this partition, which is enough to believe that the other 31 co-sharers are satisfied with the partition. Perusal of Khasra girdawari for year 2011-12 produced by the petitioner showed that the petitioner is in joint possession of land measuring 4 kanals falling in khasra No.40/42/02 (wanda No.01) with other three persons and they have not agitated the same. Out of this number, an area measuring 2K-01M has been placed in wanda No.01 meaning thereby that less than even 1 kanal out of entitlement of petitioner has been taken out of his possession out of this number. The contention of the petitioner that he would suffer heavy loss in consequence of impugned partition is baseless and without merits as minor adjustments are liable to be ignored while deciding the matters of partition.
Reliance is placed upon PLD 1950 Punjab (Rev.) 1214, which is reproduced as under:-- ' In effecting a partition there is no sense in microscopic partition of each khewat. But where the land is of various kinds such as chahi, nahri and barani, each class should be partitioned separately and the parties should be allotted their proper share in each class and in the process of such allotment value and rent must be taken into consideration".
Even then, if the petitioner wants to get his wanda separated, he may move competent forum for the purpose.
9. From the above, it also appeared that no new ground has been raised in the review petition nor any element of mis-reading/non-reading of the facts has been indicated. Section 163(2) of Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957 is very clear about such situation, which reads as under:--
1. 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 or for any other sufficient reason 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.
2. Every application for a review of a decree or order under subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order.
10. Further, the law framed by august Supreme Court of Pakistan as reported in PLD 1997 Supreme Court 865 is very much clear on the issue, which reads as under:-- "Review of judgment or order by the Supreme Court---Scope-Principles---Review proceedings cannot partake re-hearing of a decided case---If the Court has taken a conscious and a deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such judgment or order cannot be obtained on the grounds that the Court took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible---Review also cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing of appeal or petition but not produced---Ground not urged or raised at the hearing of petition or appeal cannot be allowed to be raised in review proceedings---Only such errors in the judgment/order would justify review, which are self-evident, found floating on the surface, are discoverable without much deliberations, and have a material bearing on the final result of the case".
11. In Circumstances, where no new ground has been taken nor an element of mis-reading/non- reading of the facts is invoked the review is not competent under the relevant provision of law.
Hence, the review petition is dismissed and impugned order dated 23.12.2014 of this court is upheld.