1. ' Z .C. VALIANI, J.--Petitioners above named by above petition have challenge the authority of respondent No,2 to review the order dated 16-12-1972 of Member Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad, on the following facts and grounds:- ' That the co-petitioner No,1 Is the husband of the co-petitioner No,2 and the father, of co-petitioner No,3 to 5, The respondent No,3 is the cousin of co-petitioner No,1 and the respondent No,4 & 5 are the minor sons of the said respondent.
2. ' That the late Abdul Majid Jatoi, hereinafter referred to as the deceased was closely related to the co-petitioners being the real brother of co-petitioner No,2, The deceased had in his own right considerable rural and urban properties situated in Dadu and Larkana District in the province of Sind.
3. ' That the said deceased and his late wife being issueless had their residence in common with this sister, the co-petitioner No,2, for a number of yeaRs, The said deceased during his lifetime in February, 1962 applied to the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division/Deputy Commis sioner, Dadu, for permission to alienate by way of oral gift portions of his agricultural holdings in the Districts of Dadu/Larkana, of which he was then in cultivating possession. The requisite permission was accorded to the deceased. The deceased accordingly on 19th November, 1962, owing to natural love and affection for the co-petitioners 2 to 5 orally gifted to them specified agricultural holdings.
4. In terms thereunder, the co-petitioner No,2 received about 120 acres. The co-petitioners 3ard 4 about 170 acres, and the co-petitioner No,5 received similar gifts in respect of a portion of the agricultural holdings of the deceased situated in Larkana District. In addition to the co-petitioners, 2 to 5 the sons of co-petitioner No, 1 & 2 viz, Ashiq Hussain and Zahid Hussain also received oral gifts from their maternal uncle, the said deceased. The gifts were evidenced by statements before the Revenue authorities on acceptance of the gifts by the listed donees, the said deceased donor divested possession of the gifted agricultural properties in favour of all the donees, through the co- petitioner No,1, The relative mutations were also effected in the relevant Revenue Records. The said deceased however retained for himself other agricultural holdings, including several urban properties. He continued to enjoy the corpus thereof right up to 1968, when he died whilst performing Haj.
5. ' That the respondent No,3 from 1962 had accepted the cited gifts without any demur and or objections. However on the demise of the said deceased, he want only invaded the co-petitioners Nos.2 to 5's rights in respect of the gifted properties. He was actively assisted in his nefarious designs, according to petitioners by cover of Governmental patronage extended by the then West Pakistan Home Minister Kazi Fazalullah. The said respondent, with the total aid of the local authorities effected compulsive transfers and fictitious sale-deeds forcibly executed registered and mutated conspicuously all in one day. The sale-deeds stood vitiated by coercion, fraud, pressures, undue influence wrongful confinement and dire threats. The illegality stood further accentuated by the manifest legal disability in so far as co-petitioners 3 and 4 were concerned, in that they were they minoRs, The respondent No,3 succeeded in his machination through authoritative support and threats where under certain persons of co-petitioner No,1 were arrested.
6. The ladies of his household, amongst whom are the remaining co-petitioners were threatened humiliation and forgeries were made in the relative sale-deeds. The said respondent thereafter through governmental support took forcible possession of the disputed gifted properties and caused mutations in his own name and that of his minor sons the respondents Nos.4 and 5.
7. ' That on 31-10-1972 upon administrative changes, the then Deputy Commissioner made a reference to the Board of Revenue under section 164(3) for rescinding the manifest illegal fraudulent and coercive mutations effected by the respondent No,3 to the detriment and prejudice of co-petitioners 2 to 5. The respondent No,2, in exercise of powers conferred by the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, etc. by his orders dated 16-12-1972 after notice to all the parties and hearing them, set aside the illegal and arbitrary mutations. The respondent No,2 directed action against the colluding officials and the respondent No, 3.
8. ' That the respondent No,1 in pursuant to the directions of the respondent No,2 filed a criminal complaint against respondent No,3 and otheRs, ' That the co-petitioner No,1 at no point of time featured as a beneficiary under the cited gifts. He had only taken possession of the gifted properties as affected by the said deceased, in favour of co-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5. However with a view to accord ostensible credibility to the impugned sale transactions, the respondent No,3 forced the co-petitioner No,2 by threats and undue influence to transfer from the gifted properties about 25 acres, for a grossly inadequate considera - tion of Rs,5,000 (Rupees five thousand only). The said co-petitioner was forcibly made to witness the sale-deeds.
9. ' That upon the lodging of the complaint, the respondent No,3 filed two civil suits in the Court of District Judge, Dadu, challenging the impugned action of respondent No,2 in regard to the mutation of lands in favour of co-petitioners Nos.2 to 5. In the said suit the respondent No,3 obtained an order of status quo, the said suits are presently pending.
10. ' That the co-petitioners have pre-emptily been served with notice by the respondent No,2, The notice indicated in the first instance, that an appeal had been lodged by respondent No,3 and that the matter had again been reopened. They engaged a counsel, who entered appearance on their behalf. The counsel caused to be filed an application before the respondent No,2, seeking copies of respondent No,3 alleged memo of appeal and other papeRs, ' That in reply, the respondent No,2 informed the co-petitioners through their counsel, that the matter in fact was taken up on the review side. The respondent No,3 appeared to be exerting pressure and influence to set the order operative against him i.e, Annexure 'E' reviewed and set aside. This is patent from the fact, that the complaint Annexure 'F' stood withdrawn by the respondent No,1, The co-petitioners apprehend from the series of notices, that the matter has been pre-determined by the manifest illegal and male fide notice. The impediment of a formal notice was sought to be removed by latter cited notice.
11. ' Petitioners above named in view of the above facts have filed the above petition, on the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition and have prayed for reliefs; as mentioned in above petition.
12. ' The learned Advocate for the petitioners at the outset submitted, that the above petition could be disposed of on short point, that the purported exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No,2, on the basis of notice dated 24-12-1975 Annexure 'G' read with letter of clarification dated 31-1-1976 received from the Board of Revenue Sind Annexure I, is illegal and without lawful authority, since the said respondent No,2 has no powers under the statute in the given circumstances to reopen the question determined by order dated 16-12-1972, by Member Board of Revenue Sind Hyderabad, vide Annexure 'E' as the said respondent, after passing the said order dated 16-12-1972 was rendered focus officio and no further suo motu powers were available for exercise, with a view to review matter conclusively by decided the predecessor of the said respondent.
13. ' In support of above contention the learned Advocate has relied upon D.B decision of this Court, in the case of Nasim Ahmed Kharal and 4 others v. Board of Revenue Sind and 2 others reported in 1979 CLC 609, in which the scope of section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XII of 1957) was duly considered and this Court came to conclusion, that the said review power were not unrestricted powers and further more the said powers could not be exercised beyond 90 days from the impugned order in question.
14. ' The learned Addl. A.-G. appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 very fairly conceded to the above legal position and submitted that the respondent No,2 could not have exercised review powers, after expiry of 90 days from Annexure 'E', which is dated 16-12-1972.
15. ' We have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before us and have gone through all the relevant documents filed with the above petition as well as Annexure 'E' and the original notice Annexure 'G' and clarification of the said notice as contained in Annexure 'I'.
16. ' It is clear from Annexure 'I', the respondent No,2 wanted to exercise his powers of review under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act XII of 1957 and there was no appeal etc. filed by respondent No,3 to 5, In view of this it is pertinent to note, that the final order Annexure 'E' was passed on 16-12-1972 by the predecessor of respondent No,2 and as such the powers of review under the provisions of section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act were available to respondent within 90 days from the said order, but both the Annexures G & I were issued after the lapse of over 3 yeaRs, In view of this we are in respectful agreement with the D.F. decision of this Court hereinabove mentioned, to which one of us was a party, for the reasons given in the said judgment and are of the opinion, that the powers of review given under section 8 are not unrestricted powers and are to be governed strictly by the provisions of the said section alone, that too within the period of 90 days from the order sought to be reviewed. In the present case the learned Addl. A.-G. was unable to point out any grounds mentioned in section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, which necessitated issuance of Annexures G & I to the petitioners and therefore we agree with the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, that purported exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No,2, under section of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act for reviewing order dated 16-12-1972 Annexure 'E' on the basis of Annexure G & I, is illegal and without lawful authority.
17. ' Therefore we allowed above petition and declare as follows:--
(a) That the order of the member Board of Revenue Sind, dated 16-12-1972 (Annexure 'E') is final and binding on the respondents.
(b) That all action taken or contemplated by respondent No,2 in pursuance of notice to review the earlier order dated 16-12-1972, is held to be of no legal effect and not warranted by law.
(c) The petitioner shall recover costs of this petition from respondent No,2.