JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, C.J.---The above titled petitions are identical in nature, therefore, the same are being disposed of through this common judgment.
2. Facts in brief are that the Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan ('the Board' ) on 6th July 1993, allotted 4040 acres of unsettled land to the Forest Department, and in the year 1996, allotted 11140 acres of unsettled land to the Gwadar Deep Sea Port Authority . One Mir Khuda-e-Dad son of Mir Hayatan, filed a suit in the Court of Qazi Gwadar , for cancellation of the allotment of the land in favour of the Forest Depar tment, claiming to be its owner , however , allotment of the land in favour of the Deep Sea Port was not called in question. The suit was decreed on 21th April 1996, against which, the Deputy Commissioner . Gwadar , the Board of Revenue and the Divisional Officer Gwadar , Forest Department, Government of Balochistan (the respondents'), filed an appeal before the Court of Majlis-e-Shoora, Mekhran Division, which was dismissed on 30th October , 1996.
3. Since the land in district Gwadar was unsettled, therefore, the Settlement Authorities started the process of land settlement during the pendency of the proceedings. Pursuant to the decree of the trial court, the land, subject matter of the decree measuring 4040 acres, and in addition, extra huge land meas uring about 9500 acres, already allotted to the Deepsea Port Authority , was also recorded on the name of Mir Khuda-e-Dad. In the meanwhile, judgments of the Courts below were challenged by the respondents before this Court, through Civil Revision No.87 of 1999, which was allowed by means of the judgment dated 16th April 2004, in result whereof, judgments and decrees of the Courts below were set aside and the suit of Mir Khuda-e-Dad was dismissed. The judgment was challenged through a Civil Appeal No.1607 of 2005, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was dismissed on 22nd January 2007. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Revenue Authorities reversed the entries of the land from the names of Mst. Bibi Zohra and others and recorded the same on the name of the Provincial Government.
4. Mst. Bibi Zohra and others, being the legal hairs of late Khuda-e-Dad, approached the Government, that they have already sold out major portion of the recorded land to different persons including the petitioner , therefore, requested for redressal of their grievance. To consider the request of Bibi Zohra and others, and to resolve the issue, the Chief Minister ('CM') constitu ted a committee under the supervision of the NAB Balochistan, which probed into the matter and submitted recommendations to the Chief Minister ('CM') through a summary by the Senior Member Board of Revenue ('SMBR') for an appropriate order of the Government. The CM, agreed with the recommendations and directed the SMBR to issue allotment orders to the purcha sers. Consequently , the SMBR issued a provisional allotment/of fer letter to the petitioner on 16th May 2005, with following terms and conditions: "No. 70/LU-2004 BOARD OF REVENUE BALOCHIST AN Dated Quetta, the 16th May , 2005 To, Col: Zahir Hussain Shah, Associate Builders Private Limited.
Subject: Provisional/Allotment/Of fer Letter With the prior approval of the Government of Balochistan, Land, measuring 1000-0-0 acres (1,35,60,000 Sq. feet) under Khasra Nos. 40, 41, 45, 46, 46/1, 49, 47, 48 of Mouza Ankara Janobi Tehsil and District Gwadar is hereby offered for allotment/lease 2 to you at a rate of rupees 120,000/- on the fallowing terms and conditions:- i) Any change in the utilization of land will require prior sanction of the Board of Revenue Balochistan, Quetta, as well as GDA. ii) The total cost of the land is required to be paid in six or lesser equal installments. iii) The above piece of land will be transferred only when the total cost is deposite d in Government treasury under the following head of account:-- 3120000-Extraordinary receipt (128) 3121000-Extraordinary receipt sale of land 3121 100-Extraordinary receipt sale of land sale of town sites in colonies. xxxx sd xxx (Marjan Khan )
Senior Member Board of Revenue"
5. The directives of the CM were since delayed, therefore, Mst. Zohra and others filed a C.P. No.262 of 2006, before this Court with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the petition in the following terms: A. Declaring that the respondents after issuance of letter dated 8.11.05, is bound under the law to allot 4100 acres of land in favour of petitioner , and in not doing so, their such act is totally illegal, improper , based on mala fides, as well as in excess and mis-exercise of authority vested in them.
B. On having declared so the respondents be directed to strictly act in accordance with the order dated 8.11.05, by implementing the same in letter and spirit.
C. Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded along with the cost of petition, in the interest of justice."
The said petition was dismissed by this Court on 18th July 2006, concluding para of the judgment is reproduced herein below: "It may be noted that in the above referred cases also land was allotted on the direction of Chief Minister in violation of Land Lease Policy .
For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in the instant petition, which is dismissed accordingly ."
6. Mst. Zohra Bibi and others feeling aggrieved, filed a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.123 Q of 2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby leave to appeal was granted on 20.10.2006 by converting the petition into Civil Appeal No.1688 of 2006 inter alia on the following points: i) Whether the Chief Minister is competent to make such allotments in violation of the statutory Land Lease Policy notified by means of Notification No. 490-8/86/Rev/dated 1.12.2000 by the Government of Balochistan, Colonization Department?
(ii) Whether the Board of Revenue is bound to comply with the illegal orders passed by the Chief Minister/Government of Balochistan qua the allotments of land in Gwadar?
(iii) Whether the Record-of-Rights prepared in the year 1976-1977 of District Gwadar could have been treated as final or in view of the decision of the Cabinet made during the meeting held on 14.06.2004 revision of the settlement of Gwadar District be carried on pursuant to the provisions as contained in section 40 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
(iv) Whether the transfer of huge chunk of land in District Gwadar after the finalization of Record-of-Rights in the year 1976-1977 can be declared ab initio void and illegal as no addition, insertion, deletion or amendment could be made in the Record-of-Rights without following the prescribed procedure?
7. In the meanwhile, 'Mst. Bibi Zohra and others withdrew their Civil Appeal from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on 25th March 2010, in view of the fact that the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.80 million till October , 2010. It is important to mention here that the amount deposited by the petitioner was less than the total amount of 1000 acres of land, therefore, the SMBR issued a letter to the petitioner on 11th of November , 2010, informing it that the competent authority has been pleased to accord allotment of 667 acres of land in lieu of the amount already deposited by it. The letter is reproduced herein below: "BOARD OF REVENUE BALOCHIST AN Dated Quetta, the 1 1th November , 2010 No.70-LU/2010. In Supersession of this Office previous Office letter No. 70-LU/2004 dated 16th May, 2005 land measuring 1,000/-, situated in Mouza Ankara Janobi Tehsil and District Gawadar . Offered in favour of Col. Zahir Hussain Shah (Associate Builders Private Limited) @ I ,20,000/- per acre, wherein, an amount of Rs.80 million is deposited. Consequent upon at your request the competent authority has pleased to accord allotment of land measuring 667 acres against the amount already deposited subject to the following terms and conditions:-- 1) A proper demarcation of land measuring 667 Acres out of proposed 1000 Acres may be carried out prior to handing over land to the Company (Associate Builders Private Limited.) keeping in view Revenue record and State interest in lieu of amount Rs.80 Million paid.
2) The Associate Builders will not claim for remaining land measuring 333 Acres.
3) Any Change in the Utilization of land will require prior sanction of the Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta as well as Gawadar Development Authority . xxxx sd XXX (Sarwar Jawaid )
Senior Member Board of Revenue Balochistan"
8. The petitioner requested the CM for allotment of rest of 333 acres of the land as well, but did not succeed. The petitioner then filed a Constitutional Petition bearing No.321 of 2015 before this Court with a request to permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining amoun t of 333 acres of land and its allotment, but the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 29th March 2016. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('LRA of 1967'). before the SMBR, challenging the above letter dated 11.11.2010 issued by the SMBR itself The petition was allowed on 09.07.2020, and the petitioner was granted the remaining 333 acres of land.
Feeling aggrieved, the Government of Balochistan through the Deputy Commiss ioner Gwadar ('the respondent') filed a Petition No.15 of 2020 under sectio ns 7 and 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 ('the Act of 1957'), before the Full Board of Revenue, Balochistan ('the Board'), which was allowed, on 19th October , 2020, hence these petitions.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under section 7 of the Act of 1956, second revision petition before the Board against the revisional order passed by the SMBR, was incompetent, but it was wrongly entertained and allowed by the Board, hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction. They added that the respondent No.4/DC Gwadar was neither an aggrieved person, nor had the authority to file the petition on behalf of the Provincial Government, but it was illegally entertained. The learned counsel. contended that the petition was filed in violation of Article 174 of the Constitution of the Republic of Pakistan, 1973, section 79, section 80 and Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, it was not mainta inable. According to the learned counsel, while allotting 333 acres of land, the SMBR exercised jurisdiction under the statuary provision of law, which has an overriding effect over the Land Lease Policy of 2000 ('LLP'), but the Full Board has erred in law by giving reference of the LLP. The learned counsel contended that the competent authority allotted 1000 acres of land to the petitioner , on the basis of the recommendations of the committee constituted by the Government and after resolution of the issue, the previous owners of the property withdrew their Civil Appeal No.1688 of 2006, pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, the matter attained finality , but this aspect was ignored by the Full Board and illegally reopened the matter . The learned counsel stated that even under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1967, the Full Board can only rectify error floating on the surface of the record, but it has exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the case on merit, which amounts to mis-exercise of jurisdiction and authority , hence committed an illegality . The learned counsel pointed out that the Full Board did not consider the fact that the petitioner was allotted 1000 acre of land on 16th May 2005, out of which, 667 acres of land has already been mutated and transferred in the name of the petitioner with possession since 13th October 2010, but the Board not only declined restoration of the remaining land measuring 333 acres, but it has also cancelled 667 acres of land, which was not an issue under adjudication, therefore, it amounts to exercise of suo motu power , which was not available to the Board, as such, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. In the end, the learned counsel stated that the act of the Board amounts to violation of the established primary 'principle of natural justice and against the admitted vested right of the petitioner , therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
10. The learned A.A.G. and the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention and stated that there is no provision of law other than the LLP for the allotment of the State's land, therefore, as has been held by this Court in C.P. No. 262 of 2006, vide judgment dated 16th May 2006, that the CM or the SMBR had no authority to allot the land in question, hence, the provisional allotment/of fer letter in respect of the land in question is illegal and unlawful. According to the learned counsel the Board by exercising power under section 164 of the LRA of 1967, has simply given reference of the judgment of this Court, pursuant to which the provisional allotment/of fer letter become inoperative, as such, the observa tions of the Board cannot be termed as an exercise of suo motu power or passing of fresh order .
11. Arguments heard and record perused. Let in the first instance, to deal with the objections so raised by the petitioner: Objection : a. Whether , a Revision Petition is maintainable against an order , decision or judgment, passed by the Court of a Member or a Senior Member Board of Revenue, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner a Revision Petition against an order passed or decree made by a Member Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not maintainable. It is a fact that the SMBR in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the order dated 11.11.2010, passed by the SMBR itself earlier in its Administrative Jurisdiction. The revisiona l order of the SMBR was challenged by the respondents through the petition filed under sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 1957, before the Board. It is to be noted that the Board, can exercise its power under section 7 of the Act of 1957, in respect of cases, specified in Rule 5(1) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules 1959 ('the Rules'). At the same time, it has the power to review an order of the Board on the grounds mentioned in Section 8 of the Act of 1957, which stipulates as under: "8. Review of orders by the Board. (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 matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his know ledge 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 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 ."
In the title of the memo of petition, filed before the Board by the respondent No.4, both sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 1957 have been mentioned with a request to revise the impugned order , pass ed by the SMBR. No doubt, the order impugned does not fall within the category of the orders specified in section 7 of the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 1959, therefore, a revision petition was not maintainable. However , under section 8 of the Act of 1956, the Board has all the power to rectify mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for other sufficient reason, review an order , passe d by a Member of the Board of Revenue. It seems that the respondent while drafting the petition filed before the Board, committed some clerical or typographical error by mentioning this word 'revision ' at the top of the petition, instead of mentioning the word ' review '. Thus, mentioning of wrong word in the title of the petition is not fatal nor it excludes the jurisdiction of the Board to entertain the review petition filed under section 8 of the Act of 1957. It seem s that the respondent wanted the Board to exercise its powers of revision and review , both, but the Board entertained the petition as a review petition and decided it by exercising power under section 8, instead of section 7 of the Act of 1957, hence the petition was maintainable, therefore, the objection is overruled.
12. Objections: b. Whether respondent No.4 / DC Gwadar , has/had any authority to initiate any legal proceedings on behalf of the "The Provincial Government of Balochistan" AND c. Whether , the subject Revision Petition No.15 / 2020 has not been (sic) filed in contravention of Article 174 of the Constitution of 1973?
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner , the petition was not maintainable, as the respondents did not fulfill the mandatory legal requirements of Article 174 of the Constitution, section 79 and section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, but the Full Board has failed to consider this legal aspect of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on PLD 1993 SC 147 and 2010 SCMR 1 15 Article 174 of the Constitution states: "174. Suits and proceedings:-- The Federation may sue or be sued by the name of Pakistan and a Province may sue or be sued by the name of the Province."
The above provision of the Constitution and section 79 of the C.P.C. provides that any proceedings for or against the Federation or the Province may be by the name of Pakistan or the respective Province as the case may be. It is a fact that the respondent No.4/DC Gwardar filed the petition titled as "Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner , Gwadar" , before the Board, which is clear that it was on the name of the Province of Balochistan.
Besides, the Government of Balochistan, not only owned and endorsed that petition, but it was strongly defended and argued by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Government before the Board as well as before this Court, being its Principal Law Officer. Under such circumstances, the requirements of Article 174 of the Constitution and section 79 of the C.P.C. have been complied with. As far as section 80, C.P.C. is concerned, it relates to issuance of prior notice to the Provincial Government, to be served upon a Secretary to that Government or to the Collector of the District, in case the Government is sued. The petition was filed by the Government itself, through the DC/Collector Gwadar , as such, no question of notice to the Secretary or the Collector arises. Besides, it is alleged that the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner Gwadar was not an aggrieved person. It is a fact that DC being a Collector of the District was a necessary party , as provided by section 80 of the C.P.C., therefore, the petitioner arrayed him as party in the revision petition filed under Section 164 of the LRA of 1967, before the SMBR. When the order dated 09.07.2020 was passed against the interest of the Government, the respondent No.4 not only being one of the respondents, but was also a custodian of the State's interest in a capacity of Collector , was aggrieved from the decision and he therefore, competently filed the petition before the Board under section 8 of the Act of 1957. Facts and circumstances of the case in hand are altogether different from the cases in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner , as such, do not attract, hence, the objections are therefore overruled.
13. Objections: d. Whether , Order VI, Rules 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have not been violated by the respondent No.4? AND e. Whether , a person can be allowed to deviate or recede / contravene his earlier stance/statement, made in a Court of competent jurisdiction?
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the official respondents while filing the petition before the Board, did not follow the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel relied upon the cases reported in 2003 YLR 3309 and PLD 1994 Lahore 111. Though Rules 14 and 15 of the C.P.C., provides that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any), but non-signing of the pleading has no penal consequences. Thus, an unintentional failure to sign the pleading can be rectified with permission of the Court by a person concerned to sign it subsequently .
Perusal of the memo of petition would reveal that it was signed by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner , Gwadar , who was subsequently authorized by the SMBR in writing to file the petition on behalf of the Government of Balochistan and the Secretary of the Board. Out of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner , the case reported in PLD 1994 Lahore 111 rather supports the contention of the respondents instead of the petitioner , whereas, the other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no resemblance with the case in hand. Thus, the legal objection has no substance in it, is therefore, overruled.
14. As far as merits of the case is concernea, it is a fact that Mr. Khuda-e-Dad did not succeed in proving his ownership in respect of the land in dispute, however he was still claiming to be its owner , therefore, he entered into different sale agreement with the petitioner and many others. At the same time, his legal heirs were requesting the Government to allot the State's land. Upon the directives of the CM, the stated committee headed by the NAB formulated the following recommendations, which were submitted by the SMBR through a summery before the CM, for getting approval of the same from the. Government: "6. Nevertheless, Government is the rule making authority , Government- has got inherent powers. Government may order any action in the large public interest. In the instant case there could be inter alia, following options for the Government.
1) May order the revision of settlement record of Mauza Anakar Junobi and may then register these 12617-2-17 acres in the name of those individuals to whom the Government may decide SO.
2) Mir Nazar and all other persons who have purchased land from Mir Nazar may apply to the Government and Government after negotiating with them may allot on proprietorship basis the dispu ted land to Mir Nazar and other buyers.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its leave granting order , referred to herein above, had questioned the authority of the CM with regard to allotment of the State's land. It is important to mention here that the committee submitted its proposals before the CM for placing them before the Cabinet for getting approval of the allotment of State's land from the Government. The CM instead of placing the matter before the Cabinet, himself issued directions to the SMBR for allotment of the land. According to Article 129 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Government is consisting of the CM and Provincial Ministers, as has been dilated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case of Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. The Government of Pakistan , reported in PLD 2016 SC 808. Admittedly , there is no order of the Government upon the recommendations of the committee, nor any Rule or Policy was framed or relaxed. To the contrary , the provisional allotment/of fer letter was issued upon the desire of the CM, who was neither competent under the law to do so nor was substitute for the Provincial Government. It has already been held by this Court in C.P. No.262 of 2006, vide judgment dated 18.07.2006, that the CM or the NAB has no authority to allot the State's land, because of the fact that there is no law authorizing the CM or any official including the SMBR, to lease out or to transf er ownership of the State's land to a private person. Only the LLP of 2000, provides a procedure, entitlement, purpose of allotment, size of the land and the authority competent to allot State's lands, which admittedly does not assign power of allotment of the State's land to the CM or the SMBR. The provisional allotment/of fer letter was issued upon the desire and directive of the CM, who was since not competen t to allot the State's land, therefore, it was without jurisdiction, hence is void.
15. Besides, the NAB was assigned the task to resolve the issue, which submitted 'recommendations to the Government for allotment of the land to the petitioners and others. We are surprise d to note here that under which provision of law, the committee has been assigned such authority . The committee headed by NAB had no authority to give recommendations, therefore, the CM was not bound to act upon the same. The SMBR being the custodian of the State's property , was under legal obligation to have had appraised the CM about the legal aspect of the case, before acting upon his directives, but the needful was not done. which has resulted into such an illegality , hence on this score a well, the provisional allotments/of fer letters have no lawful basis, which cannot be acted upon. The revenue authorities right from its lower teer, up-to SMBR are only responsible to prepare and maintain record of the properties in the Province, in accordance with the Land Revenue Act for the purpos e of collecting land revenue and to decide the dispute between the parties in respect of entries in the record of right by exercising quasi-judicial power . The Balochistan Board of Revenue or the SMBR either in their administrative capacity or in their quasi- judicial jurisdiction, also do not have the authority to allot State's land to any person.
16. Without prejudice to 'the above, even otherwise, through the letter dated 16th May 2005, the SMBR provisionally offered allotment of the land to the petitioner , subject to certain terms and conditions. It is important to mention here that an offer is always subject to acceptance, followed by payment of total cost of the land and payment of all the applicable taxes and duties. Thereafter , a sale deed or lease deed, as the case may be, in this behalf is required to be executed, which shall be registered, as provided by section 17 of the Registration Act (XVI of 1908). Admittedly , there is no formal acceptance from the petitioner in response to the offer nor is there any proper confirm allotment order in respect of the land in question, by the competent authority in his favour Similarly , no registered sale deed has been executed nor the registration fee and applicable taxes have been paid to complete the lawful sale transaction. The petitioner has simply deposited an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- in the year 2010, which does not amount to a legal allotment. Under such circumstances, since there was no lawful transaction pursuant to the provisional allotment of the State's land, as such, the petitioner did not acquire title of the land in question, especially after the judgment dated 18th July 2006, passed by this Court.
17. It is important to mention here that on the basis of the provisional allotment/o ffer letter dated 16th May 2005, the sub-ordinate revenue authorities mutated 667 acres of land in the name of the petitioner . The purpose of preparation of the revenue record is to maintain a record of rightful owner a land for the purpose of revenue collection. While preparing a record of right or mutating any property , it is incumbent upon the revenue authorities to adopt a procedure provided by section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. According to the said provision of law, the concerned revenue officer has to mutate a property in record on the basis of inheri tance, registered deed executed on the basis of a transaction, legally taken place between the parties or by or under an order or decree of a Court.
The petitioner is claiming acquisition of the property through purchase from the, Government on the basis of the provisional allotment/of fer letter , which was neither permanent allotment order , nor was issued by a competent authority . Similarly , there was no registered sale deed to prove any legal transaction taken place between the Government of Balochistan and the petitioner . Similarly , no order was made nor any decree was passed by any Court in favour of the petitioner to believ e him as lawful owner of the land in question. To the contrary this Court through the above referred judgment has already declared the allotment of State's land on the directives of the CM is illegal. The revenue authorities while mutating the land in the name of the petition er, did not follow the procedure, necessary for mutating the land as provide by section 42 of the LRA, 1967, therefore, entry of the land in the revenue record in the name of the petiti oner on the basis of the void provisiona l allotment/of fer letter does not create title in favour of the petitioners. Even otherwise, it is a well settled principle of law that mere mutation entry in the revenue record does not create any title or vested right, as such, the petitioner cannot claim his right of ownership on the basis of the revenue record. After the judgment dated 18.07.2006, passed by this Court in C.P.
No.262 of 2006, it was incumbent upon the Board of Revenue to rectify the revenue record by reverting the land in the name of the Government, but the concerned revenue authorities have failed to perform their part of obligations.
18. Despite such fact, the petitioner is still claiming to be owner of the land in question, on the basis whereof, he claims to have launched housing scheme and sold out different plots to numbers of people. Be that as it may, the claim of ownership of the petitioner is since based upon the provincial allotment/of ficer letter , which has been issued without lawful authority , therefore, any subsequent transaction in respect of the land, by the petitioner is/are also unlawful. Under such circumstances, the petitioner alone is responsible for any claim of any third party . The claim of the petitioner with regard to allotment of the land measuring 333 acres is since based upon the provisional allotment/ offer letter , dated 16.05.2005, which has already been declared as illegal and unlawful, therefore, the such claim of the petitioner was illegally entertained by the SMBR in its revisional jurisdiction. The learned counsel stated that even if the petition is treated as review petition under section 8 of the Act of 1957, the scope of, review is limited, but the Board has exceeded its jurisdiction which is an illegality . The learned counsel relied upon the cases reported in 2018 SCMR 359, 2017 SCMR 118 and PLD 2021 Quetta 9. It is to be noted that the SMBR entertained a revision petition under section 164 of the LRA, 1967 against the order , passed by the SMBR itself on 11.11.2010, in an administrative capacity , declining the request of the petitioner with regard to allotment of 333 acres of land According to section 164 of the IRA, 1967 the Board of Revenue may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to it. The SMBR while performing its function in an administrative capacity , cannot be considered as an officer subordinate to the Board of Revenue. Similarly , neither any proceedings were pending before nor disposed of by any officer subordinate to the Board' of Revenue, therefore, the order of the SMBR dated 11.11.2010, passed in an administrative capacity , cannot be called in question by the SMBR in its revisional jurisdiction. Despite such a legal. aspect of the case, the SMBR passed the order dated 09.07.2020, by exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 164 of the LRA, 1967, illegally , therefore, it was sufficient reason for the Board to review the same. The referred to judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner describes the scope and jurisdiction of the Court to exercise power of review . Since the order impugned passed by the Single Member , Board of Revenue, was challenged through the petition under section 8 of the Act of 1957, therefore, the Full Board has acted justly , fairly and properly by exercising its power of review , in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner . The Board of Revenue being the highest forum in the revenue hierarchy , has all the power to direct the subordinate revenue authorities to undo the wrong done in the revenue record, by any revenue officer subordinate to the Board and to rectify the same. There is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the order impugned, warranting interference.
Thus, in view of above, the petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are claiming to have launched a housing scheme and have sold some plots to number of persons. Any transaction, if done by the petitioner with any third person/party , without acquiring title of the land in question is illegal, therefore, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to accommodate all of them. It is a fact that the petitioner has deposited certain amount in the Government's exchequer , the Government should return the same to the petitioner .