' This writ petition arises out of order, dated 6-1-1981 of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore whereby he allowed review petition filed by Lal Din respondent against order, dated 28-9-1974 of his predecessor and restored order of the Collector, dated 17-4-1973 whereby he cancelled allotment of land made in favour of Ghulam Muhammad in Square No. 38.
2. Ghulam Muhammad was allotted 6 Acres 5 Marlas of State land in Square No. 35 Chak No. 215, Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad under the provisions of Ejected Tenants Scheme. He was later on conferred proprietary rights in the aforesaid land as well. Ghulam Muhammad had also obtained allotment of land under the aforesaid Scheme with his brother Lal Din in Square No. 38 of Chak No. 215/GB, Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad. The Collector vide his order, dated 17-4-1973 cancelled allotment of Ghulam Muhammad because he had already secured allotment in Square No. 35 and obtained proprietary rights thereof. Ghulam Muhammad assailed the aforesaid order in appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner, Sargodha vide his order, dated 12-1-1974 allowed him to acquire proprietary rights in respect of 11 acres of land situated in Square No. 38 of the aforesaid Chak. Lal Din as well as Ghulam Muhammad filed two revision petitions against the aforesaid order and the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide his order, dated 28-9- 1974 accepted the revision petition filed by Ghulam Muhammad and rejected that of Lal Din respondent. Lal Din thereafter sought review of the aforesaid order and the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide the impugned order, dated 6-1-1981 allowed the same as aforesaid. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, being joint allottee of land in Square No. 38 was entitled to have proprietary rights thereof to the extent of 1 Acre 7 Kanals and 15 Marlas and the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide order, dated 28-9-1974 rightly held that he was entitled to proprietary rights regarding the same. His successor had no jurisdiction to review his order so as to annul the order under review in the absence of any error apparent on the face of record.
4. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that under the provisions of Ejected Tenants Scheme, Ghulam Muhammad had obtained allotment of land in Square No. 35, he could not secure another allotment under the aforesaid scheme. It was also stated that in fact Ghulam Muhammad was not allottee of land in Square No. 38 and that he got interpolated his name in the relevant record. It was also stated that the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to review the order of his predecessor on sufficient ground as envisaged under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957.
5. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. The relevant provisions of section 8 of Act XI as amended vide Act XVIII of 1964, read 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 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) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X"
'It appears that the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue for sufficient ground shown by Lal Din respondent and in exercise of his jurisdiction passed the impugned order holding that Ghulam Muhammad deceased having already secured allotment of land in Square No. 35 under Ejected Tenants Scheme could not get another allotment under the same Scheme and the Collector had rightly cancelled his allotment in Square No. 38.
' The impugned order suffers from no legal infirmity and calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction.
6. In the result this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.