AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against an order dated 18-12-1979, passed by respondent No.3, allowing the review filed by respondents 1 and 2.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petitions are that the Colonization Officer granted survey numbers 514/2, 515/1 and 2, 513/3-4 and 515/3 and 4 to Jamil son of Haji Dhani Dino and Noor Ahmed son of Khuda Bux. Against the above grant, three appeals were filed, i.e. One by Pir Mohammad, second by Lal Bux and the third by Imam Bux. The above appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 29-6-1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, whereby on the basis of a compromise entered into between the intervenors A.I Mohammad and Arab and the present respondents 1 and 2 who were allotted survey numbers 514/2 and 515/1 and 2 respectively. The other two survey numbers, referred to hereinabove were allotted to A.I Mohammad and Arab. It seems that petitioner No.1 filed revision before respondent No.3, which revision was allowed by an order dated 18-2-1979 on the ground that respondents 1 and 2 failed to prove themselves to be qualified haris of the deh. It was also held that the aforesaid two intervenors have also no right to get the lease and, therefore, it was ordered that suo moto notices should be issued against them for cancellation. It seems that thereafter the respondents filed a review petition, which was allowed by respondent No.3 by aforesaid order dated 18-12-1979.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. R.A. Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioners has urged as follows:
(i) That the review petition was not competent as under section 7 (2) of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Act, a revision was competent before the Full Board.
(ii) That even otherwise the review was liable to be dismissed on merits as no ground for reviewing the order was made out.
On the other hand Mr. Faiz Muhammad H.A. Abbasi Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has contended that the provisions of section 8 of the Act are independent from section 7 and, therefore, the review was competent and, secondly, that the factum that respondents were in cultivating possession not only for one year but for about 12 years was not considered and thirdly that the petitioners were strangers to the proceedings of the allotment even upto the stage of the appeal.
4. Adverting to the first submission of Mr. R.A. Qureshi that review was not competent as under section 7 (2) of the Act, a revision was provided before a Full Board which means two or more members, it may be observed that we are unable to accept the above submission as the scope of section 7 is different from the scope of Section 8 and the remedies are different. If we were to accept the contention of Mr. R.A. Qureshi, it would render section 8 redundant, as in no case a member after having committed error on the face of the order can review his own order. There is no restriction provided in Section 8 as to the exercise of power of review by a member of the Board.
5. As regards the merits of the review petition it may be observed that it seems to be an admitted position that neither at tile original stage of allotment of the land in question nor at the appellate stage, the petitioners were parties to the proceedings. On the other hand, as observed hereinabove that originally the land was allotted to Jamil and Noor Ahmed and, thereupon, the aforesaid three appeals were filed by Pir Mohammad and the present two respondents. From the order passed in appeals, it is evident that the compromise was effected on the basis of the admission of the factum of possession and the parties were allowed to retain respective survey numbers which were in their possession. The allowing of revision filed by the petitioner No.1 was not warranted as he was not party to the proceedings nor he was able to produce any documents to indicate that he was factually in possession of the above survey numbers. However, alongwith the above petitioner the petitioners have filed village form indicating that petitioner No.1 was hari for the year 1978-79 in respect of survey number 515/182 only. The above alleged village form was not produced by the petitioner before respondent No.3 at the time of filing of the revision and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same.
Even if we were to hold that the powers of review could not have been pressed into service, we can still decline to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction as equity is more on the side of the respondents 1 and 2 than on the side of the petitioners as admittedly the former were in possession of the two survey numbers for about 12 years, whereas petitioner No.1 was hari in respect of only one of the above two survey numbers and that too for the year 1978-79.
The petition has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
M.Y.H./A-562/K