1. ' This is a review petition filed by the petitioner Muhammad Saleh, against the order passed by the learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, W. P., Lahore, dated 22-8-1969 rejecting the revision of the petitioner in respect of Barrage Land measuring 12-0 acres from U. A. No, 200 of Deh Khadehro.
2. ' The grounds raised in the review petition are that the petitioner is a landless Hari of Deh Khadehro.
3. He was in possession of this land since 1957-58. He was resident in village Nabi Bux which is situated in the same Deh Khadehro in which the disputed land is situated. On the other hand the respondent is not a self-cultivating Hari but is a manager of one Mir Wali Muhammad Talpur and that the respondent used to take about 200 acres of land on Eksalo lease from the Barrage Department in various Dehs and used to get it cultivatedthrough Hans. Despite the fact that the respondent was not a bona fide Hari, he was granted some other land on Harap conditions. He also took up certain land through auction, which clearly shows that he is a rich person with high status.
4. The Honourable Member, Board of Revenue while deciding the revision did not take into consideration the status of the parties as well as the fact that the petitioner was a local Hari.
5. ' The Advocate for petitioner has mainly contended that the parties have compromised whereby the respondent has withdrawn from his grant in favour of the petitioner through the intervention of Nekmards.
6. ' So far as the merits of the case are concerned, I do not think there is any case for review because the learned M.B.R. Has passed order after examining the record thoroughly and hearing the parties at length. The ground for compromise by the parties cannot be accepted as sufficient for the purpose of reviewing the order passed by the learned M B. R. Under section 8 of the board of Revenue Act any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board of Revenue 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. In this case the learned Advocate has failed to produce any new evidence or advance any other sufficient reason which justifies a review of the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The mere fact that the parties have compromised subsequent to the decision by the learned A Member, Board of Revenue in the revision, will not be sufficient ground for allowing a review petition.
7. ' The review petition is, therefore, rejected. The petitioner can, however, approach the Barrage authorities who are competent to decide whether the land can be transferred through compromise under the rules.