' The learned Member, Board of Revenue vide his decision dated 15-2-1987 rejected the revision petition of the present petitioner Budhay Khan. After the rejection of this revision petition the petitioner Budhay Khan moved a constitutional Writ Petition No,2587 of 1987 before the High Court.
The contention of the petitioner was that he had raised various issues, but despite the fact that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had noted those contentions, he had failed to give any findings of his own and had simply observed that he upheld the impugned order dated 25-5-1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Gujranwala.
2. The High Court observed that both the counsel had agreed with the above narrations, and had further agreed that the petition be accepted and the case by remanded to the Board of Revenue for deciding the revision petition afresh after hearing the parties.
3. The High Court therefore remanded the case to the Board of Revenue with the direction that the learned Member, Board of Revenue should treat the revision petition as pending adjudication and decide the same after hearing both the parties.
4. The parties were heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue as a consequence of this direction of the High Court and the remanded revision petition was decided by him on 25-3-1989.
5. The present review petition is against that order.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Member, Board of Revenue's decision dated 25-3-1989 has not complied with the orders of the High Court, in that the High Court had directed that the learned Member, Board of Revenue would not only note down the contentions of the petitioner but would also give findings of his own on them. In support of his arguments he has referred to para 5 of the impugned order where the learned Member, Board of Revenue has made the observation that even if it is presumed that some of the respondents challenged the said order and then had withdrawn the same, the balance of convenience would lie in favour of the respondents. This, in his view, is not a proper compliance with the directions of the High Court, as this is not a clear, speaking finding on an important aspect of the case. In his view the present review petition is simply a request for the implementation of the decision of the High Court, which has not so far been implemented. Since the direction was to the Board of Revenue, the petitibner has come back to the same Court to get the order implemented, and would be compelled to do so as long as the order of the High Court was not implemented.
7. In my view, the important question of law involved here is whether in the review jurisdiction, I can sit in judgment over the question whether the direction of the High Court has or has not been implemented by my predecessor. If I interpret the decision of the Board of Revenue as failing to give effect to the intention and direction of the High Court, whereas my learned predecessor would obviously be of the opinion that he had done so, I would be sitting in judgment over his interpretation of the intention and decision of the High Court. I am afraid this jurisdiction the present Court is not clothed with under the law relating to review. As this matter stands, it is entirely for the directing Court to come to a decision whether or not the subordinate Court has complied with his direction properly and completely. This question could also be gone into in all its aspects in an appeal, if the directions had not been fully complied with by a subordinate Court. Here the matter of proper or improper implementation of the decision of the High Court is required to be adjudicated upon by a Court of equal, and not superior jurisdiction.
' In my view, therefore, the proper course under the law for the petitioner would he to agitate the matter before the High Court and satisfy it that the Board of Revenue had not implemented its directions in law and in spirit.