FAISAL ARAB, J.---In the year 2003, the appellants filed suits against each of the respondents separately claiming possession of survey No, 134/4 measuring 01-01 acre in Deh Behram, Taluqa Hyderabad. It was pleaded that an area of approximately 300 square feet is under unauthorized occupation of each of the respondents for more than three years who have built their kacha pakka houses and reside there with their families and are liable to be ejected. Additionally, mesne profit at the rental value of Rs,1,000/- per month was also claimed. The cause of action that first accrued for filing the suits was disclosed to be the order dated 22.1.2002 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue on a review application declaring the appellants to be owners of the disputed survey number.
2. The basis of appellants' claim was that in the year 1932, the disputed survey number, along with other survey numbers, were allotted by Barrage Department to their predecessor-in-interest namely. Arab son of Nindo Khawaja and in this regard Transfer Order (T.O. Form) No,6315 was issued on 25.08.1947. It was averred in the plaint that mutation of the disputed survey number under entry No, 172 was also affected on 27.08.1947 in the revenue record. It was further averred that after expiration of their predecessor-in-interest Arab son of Nindo Khawaja in the year 1946, the disputed survey number was mutated in the names of his heirs in 1969. Later in 1987 upon the death of Arab's son namely Sher Ali, his share was mutated in the names of his heirs in 1988 and so in this manner the title of the disputed survey number now stands in the names of the present appellants.
3. In their respective written statements, the respondents, who all belong to the Kolhi community, denied that survey No, 134/4 was ever granted to Arab son of Nindo Khawaja by the Barrage Department. It was averred that the Form-A does not contain such a grant and the mutation entries are bogus which do not create any right or title in favour of Late Arab Nindo. It was further pleaded in paragraph 7 of the written statement that over a century ago their forefathers established a village on the disputed survey number which now comprise of forty houses of kolhi community as well as a place of worship.
4. The trial court dismissed the suits. The appellants preferred appeals, which were allowed and the judgment of the trial court was reversed declaring the appellants to be entitled to possession of the disputed survey number along with mesne profits. The respondents preferred revision applications before the Sindh High Court, which were allowed and the appellate court's decision was overturned. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Sindh, the appellants filed Civil Petitions Nos, 526-K to 539-K of 2016 in which leave was granted, hence the present appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Mushtaq A. Memon argued that the learned Judge in the High Court has erred in holding that as neither the original documents were produced in evidence nor the original record was summoned from the Barrage Department therefore the appellants failed to prove their case. He contended that such finding is contrary to Articles 85 and 87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order as certified copies were allowed to be tendered in evidence which conclusively establish that Late Arab Nindo was granted the disputed survey number in the year 1932. He further submitted that the title of the appellants was fully acknowledged by the Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh in his order dated 22.01.2002 to which the respondent of Civil Appeal No, 53-K/2017 was a party and this order was not challenged any further hence it attained finality. It was also argued that the said respondent sought regularization of the village under Sindh Goth- Abad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987, which could not be regularized under the law and the application moved before the Member, Board of Revenue in this behalf in 1996 was solely intended to usurp the disputed survey number belonging to the appellants.
6. In support of the appellants' case, much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the order passed by Member, Board of Revenue on 22.01.2002. We have noticed that order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 22.01.2002 was passed in the Review Petition No, 40/2001 wherein the order dated 31.01.2001 passed in Appeal No, SBOA-50 of 1999 was reviewed.
Therefore, it is important to first examine the concluding part of the order dated 31.01.2001, which reads as under:- "I have come to the conclusion that the land comprising of S. Nos, 134/3 to 5 of deh Behram, Taluka Hyderabad is established village since long ago and poor villager of Kolhi community are settled there since their forefathers and respondents remained silent for more than fifty years to claim village as their ancestral property. Besides original A-Form bearing No, 704 of deh Behram showing S. Nos, granted to the respondents does not indicate S.Nos,134/3 to 5 of the village and A- Forms subsequently prepared seem to be un-authenticated and suspicious. The old Revenue record is in torn condition which cannot be relied upon and respondents failed to establish their case by producing original T.O. Form issued by the Barrage authorities. Thus village land was proved to be Government land beyond any shadow of doubt. 1 therefore allow the appeal and further order that poor villagers residing in the village should not be ejected till village is regularized by the competent authority either under Sindh Gothabad Housing Scheme Act, 1967 or by any legal forum."
7. In this order, it was held that on the disputed survey number there is a village established by the Kolhi community, who have been settled there since their forefathers and the appellants for the last more than fifty years did not raise any claim of ownership on the land in question. It was also held that the original Form-A No, 704, under which certain lands were granted to the predecessor- in-interest of the appellants, does riot include the disputed survey number nor the original T.O.
Form was produced and the Form-A subsequently prepared was not authentic and thus the village land is undoubtedly Government land. It was further held that the poor villagers should not be ejected till the village is regularized by the competent authority either under Sindh Goth-Abad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987 or by any other legal forum. On reaching such conclusion, Member Board of Revenue, Sindh allowed the appeal of Versing who is respondent in Civil Appeal No, 53-K of 2017. It was this order against which the appellants filed a review application which the same Member Board of Revenue, Sindh 22.01.2002 wherein it was held as under:- "This is a review petition filed against my own order dated 31.1.2001 passed in appeal bearing No, SROA-50 of 1999 filed by respondent Versing son of Waro and others v. Arab son of Nindo and another whereby the appeal of the respondent was allowed in respect of S.No, 134/3 to 5 of Deh Behram, Taluka Hyderabad with further directions that poor villagers residing in the village should not be ejected till village is regularized by the competent authority either under Sindh Gothabad Housing Scheme Act, 1987 or by any legal forum.
2. Heard both the parties through their counsel and perused the record including fresh evidence produced by the petitioners. I also visited the site in order to find real facts in the interest of justice and made site enquiries from the residents of adjoining area and found that there are about 40 old katcha, pacca houses including temple of Kohli community in S.No, 134/4 area 1-01 acres and Grid Station in S.No,134/5 0-16 ghuntas acquired by the WAPDA Authorities on payment of compensation to the petitioners. Thus I am of the opinion that S.No,134/3 to 5 belongs to the petitioners. I therefore allow the review petition with observation that an old village should remain intact and old villagers should not be ejected from the village site as petitioners remained silent for more than 50 years to eject the villagers. However, the respondents shall pay the compensation of the land under village site to the owners at the concessionary rate per acres by private negotiation keeping in view the rate already allowed by the WAPDA Authorities for the land acquired for Grid Station."
8. In the original order dated 31.01.2001, the factual and legal position was determined and it was held that village land is still Government land. In the order-in-review dated 22.01.2002, the factual position was not disturbed at all. However, what was newly introduced was that the villagers should pay compensation at concessionary rates to the appellants. The most surprising aspect of this part of the order-in--review was that it declared the appellants to be owners instead of the government without giving any reason for reversing the findings arrived at in the original order dated 31.01.2001. This order clearly specified that neither the original Form-A No, 704 contained the grant of disputed survey number in favour of Late Arab Nindo nor the original T.O. Form was produced. Hence the claim of ownership made by the appellants, rejected in the original order dated 31.01.2001 was reversed by the same Member, Board of Revenue in review proceedings without pointing out any legal error in the original order. Once a case is finally decided, the Court becomes functus officio. The only provision which allows to make change in the final order is the provision of review, scope of which is very limited i,e, to correct an error that is floating on the face of the record. To have a second opinion of the findings reached in the final order by the same court is not permissible while exercising power of review. Such power lies solely with the higher forum. Merely treating the appellants to be owners of the disputed survey instead of the Government in review proceedings without discussing any error and overturning the original decision clearly amounts to granting a relief that was not only beyond the scope of the review but on the face of it was void in the eyes of law.
9. The respondents in their written 'statements had also taken the plea that the disputed survey number 134/4 was never granted by the Barrage Department to Arab Nindo nor such grant is reflected in Form-A. This plea was specifically put to appellants' witness in his cross-examination to which he replied in the affirmative. So the appellants' own witness, categorically admitted that the disputed survey number was not mentioned in From-A, which is a principal document of grant that also contains the details of installments to be paid by the grantee and after all installments and other charges are paid, the Barrage department issues Transfer Order (T.O. Form) and on the basis of the T.O. Form, mutation in the Revenue Record is affected by the Revenue Authorities. The parent document is, therefore, Form-A which establishes grant of land by the government. When the original Form admittedly did not contain disputed survey number and some other Form-A was attempted to be introduced by the appellants to establish their claim to the disputed survey number, the Member Board of Revenue in his order dated 31.01.2001 considered it to be an unauthentic document. Even the original T.O. Form was .not produced before him. Henee the appellants failed to establish grant of the disputed survey number by the Barrage Department in favour of their predecessor-in-interest namely Late Arab Nindo, what to speak of a valid grant.
10.We have also noticed that in the suits, while acknowledging the occupation of the disputed survey number by the members of the Kolhi community, the appellants did not even take the plea as to when or at what point of time the appellants were dispossessed. It was also not claimed that disputed survey number was ever brought under cultivation considering the fact that grants are meant for agricultural purposes only. In paragraph 11 of the plaint even the cause of action that first accrued to the appellants was shown to be the order-in-review dated 22.01.2002 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh. No other event prior to this date was cited as the starting point of the appellants' cause of action, not even the respondents' forefathers coming into occupation of the disputed survey number and setting up their homes that transformed into a village. The respondents in their written statements as well as in their evidence had categorically taken the plea that the village has been in existence for the last hundred years or so and there are forty houses and a place of worship on the land in question.
11. It seems that the appellants staked their claim to the disputed survey number after one of the respondents, namely Versing, sought regularization of the village of his community in 1996 as the status of the land changed from rural to urban and became part of the outskirts of the city of Hyderabad. Prior to this, the appellants did not challenge the enjoyment of the disputed survey number by the Kohli community. The preponderance of probabilities leads us to conclude that the survey number in dispute i,e, 134/4 measuring 1-01 acre in Deh Behram, Taluqa Hyderabad is Government land, which was never granted to Late Arab Nindo. The appellants are therefore not entitled to seek the reliefs sought in the suits. All these connected appeals therefore fail and are hereby dismissed.