The petitioner was allotted 51 acres of land in 1953 under Reclamation Bara Scheme in Chak No. 3/5 R; Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang. Under the terms of the scheme after the land was developed the Government had to take over half of the developed land the remaining half was to be given to the allottees. In the present case the Collector on 30-10-1963 made two portions of the land and resumed a portion measuring 202 kanals 19 marlas and left the other portion measuring 208 kanals to the petitioner. This appor--tionment was accepted by the petitioner and even an agreement was executed in pursuance of the apportionment. The petitioner subsequently, however, went in appeal and the Additional Commissioner on 11-11-1964 accepted the appeal and directed that the whole of Square No. 10 and one killa adjoining Square No. 10 from Square No. 11 be given to the petitioner. Subsequently on a note submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Jhang, the Commissioner approached the Board of Revenue with a request for permis--sion to review the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 11-11-1964. The Board of Revenue granted the necessary permission and the Additional Commissioner reviewed the order of 1964 on 28-7-1966 and restored the order of the Collector of 1963. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the Additional Commissioner of 28-7-1966 the petitioner came to the High Court in writ petition on the ground that since the Board of Revenue had already permitted the review any appeal or revision before the Board of Revenue would be of no consequence.
2. The learned counsel has argued that the order of 28-7-1966 passed by the Additional Commissioner in review of the order of 11-I1-1964 passed by his predecessor was illegal and without jurisdiction. It is contended that! a review was possible within 90 days of the original and since the impugned order was barred by limitation a review was not possible. Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act provides a review by the Commissioner on his own motion or on the application of an aggrieved person. The present review is obviously in the nature of a review on its own motion. The note submitted by the Deputy Commissioner cannot 6e equated with an application made' by an aggrieved person. There is no limitation provided for a suo Motu review although a limitation has been provided for in the case of au application made by an aggrieved person. In my view the review made by the Additional Commissioner on 28-7-1966 was a suo motu review and no period of limitation has been provided for in such cases.
3. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the Board of Revenue in granting sanction for review should have heard the petitioner and since he has not been heard the sanction itself is without lawful authority. I am afraid there is no force in this contention for the reason that after the sanction was granted by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner was heard by the Additional Commissioner who was then seized of the review application. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the order in review he could have challenged it on the judicial side before the Board of Revenue.
The petitioner cannot make any grievance of the fact that he was not heard by the Board of Revenue before they permitted the hearing of a review by the Additional Commissioner. This is no violation of any rule nor can this be termed as violative of principles of natural justice because the petitioner did get a hearing the before Additional Commissioner when proper hearing was given.
4. It was lastly argued by the learned counsel that the. Portion given to the petitioner bythe Collector which has now been upheld by the Addi--tional Commissioner in 1966 gives him land in scattered portions which is against the principles of consolidation. It is true that it is desirable that the land to be cultivated should be compact but there is no rule in the Reclamation Bara Scheme which requires that the land to be surrendered t the allottee should be a single bloc. The apportionment of the land in an. Way was within the discretion of the Collector and the apportionment canno6 be called in question in the course of the present proceedings.
5. For the above reasons, I find no force in this petition. It is dismissed with costs.