' The brief facts leading to this revision are that Sardar Ali was given temporary allotment in village Khopra, tehsil Daska for his maintenance as refugee from Jammu and Kashmir. Later he applied for and was given proprietary rights. A formal Mutation No, 218 to this effect was attested on. 30-9- 1978, Subsequently Sardar Ali sold this land through registered sale-deed in favour of respondent lftikhar Hussain Minhas and a mutation to this effect was attested accordingly. On 14-11-1981 an application was moved by the petitioners contending that they were entitled to share the allotment made in favour of Sardar Ali as his family members. Further, that Mutation No, 218 giving proprietary rights to Sardar Ali should be accordingly reviewed. The District Collector accepted the motion for review on the same date. The respondent then moved review application against the orders of the District Collector, dated 14-11-1981 which was rejected on 6-12-1982. The respondent further agitated the matter in revision on which the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, vide orders dated 21-5-1984, set aside the orders of the District Collector by which permission was accorded for the review of Mutation No, 218. Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners who has been heard in preliminary hearing, has pressed the following two points:-
(i) That the petitioners were entitled to share with Sardar Ali as family members in the allotment made to him as Jammu and Kashmir refugee; and
(ii) That the impugned order is nullity since .The Additional Commissioner had no powers of revision in respect of the orders passed by the District Collector allowing review of Mutation No, 218.
3. I have considered these arguments. The petitioners who are related to Sardar Ali as wife, son, daughter and niece, respectively, could have been included as family members only, if such application had been made by Sardar Ali, before he disposed of the property allotted to him. The bid made by the petitioners to be included as shareholders in the proprietary rights, obtained by Sardar Ali after he had disposed of the property in dispute smacks of fraud and collusion. In any case, this issue has been discussed in considerable details by the learned Additional Commissioner and I would agree with his findings that the petitioners had no claim over the property after Sardar Ali had divested himself of the ownership of the property in dispute.
4.On the second issue, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred me to the ruling given by my learned brother Mr. S. M. Nasim, Member, Board of Revenue, reported in PLD 1982 Rev. 8 in support of this contention that no appeal or revision lies against the order granting permission for review. On this issue, I referred to section 164 of Land Revenue Act which does not place any restriction or circumscribes the powers of revision. Whereas an order allowing review is not appealable under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act but no such inability has been placed on the revisional powers under section 164. On this issue, I would,' therefore, respectfully disagree with my learned predecessor and hold that an order allowing permission for review can be agitated in revision. In view of these findings, I would hold that the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner interfering in revision do not suffer from any legal inability. In consequence this revision is dismissed in limine.