HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- These review petitions are directed u/s 8 of the Board of Revenue Punjab, Act, 1957, against the order dated18.8.1987 of the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue whereby he accepted the revision petition of Malik Siraj Din.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of village Kando Rangar, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 13.4.1977. Malik Siraj Din petitioner in review petition No. 04/88 feeling dissatisfied with the confirmation order, filed an appeal in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons) Collector (Cons) who vide his order dated 22.11.1978 remanded the case to the Assistant Consolidation Officer Chunian with the direction that the case would be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after visiting the spot and examining the record. In pursuance of the remand order the Assistant Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties and examining the record rejected the appeal of the said Malik Siraj Din on 26.4.1979 which was challenged in appeal in the court of the Collector (Cons) which was rejected on 17.3.1985. Malik Siraj Din then went up in revision petition in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) who vide his order dated 27.6.1985 dismissed it holding that the stance adopted by the said Malik Siraj Din was wholly baseless. He was accommodated as a result of consolidation according to his previous entitlement. Further demand was not justified. The order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) was assailed in revision petition in the court of the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide his impugned order* accepted it. He restored Khasra No. 1833 to Malik Siraj Din in lieu of Khasra No. 1839 min, on the grounds that the said land was neither owned or possessed by Mst. Rajan etc. Nor was adjacent to their plot. Hence these review petitions.
3. The learned counsel for Mst. Rajan etc., petitioners in Review No. 268/1987 and respondents in Review No.04/88 contended that the concurrent findings of the Collector (Cons) and Addl.
Commissioner (Cons) were in Mst. Rajan's favour but those orders were set aside by the Board of Revenue and instead of Khasra No. 1833 Mst. Rajan was given Khasra No. 1839 by the impugned order. The fact necessitating the review was that Khasra No. 1839 Mst.Rajan was given Khasra No. 1839 by the impugned order. The fact necessitating the review was that khasra No. 1839 was covered by construction and it had been sold by Malik Siraj Din to someone else and hence could not be given to Mst. Rajan etc.
4. The learned counsel for Malik Siraj Din, petitioner in Review No. 04/88 and respondent in Review No. 268/1987, maintained that Khasra No. 1833 was added to Mst. Rajan's Scheme No. 58 after the Scheme had been approved by the Consolidation Officer as was evident from columns No. 5, 9 and 10 thereof, Khasra No. 1985 (7K-18M) had been crossed out and its area was also reduced to 1K-8M in all the three columas. These entries were highly doubtful and, therefore, the case was remanded by the Collector (Cons), Khasra No. 1833 (6K- 16M) was in possession of Siraj Din according to Khatauni Ishtinial and it was Shamlat. Continuing the learned counsel stated that Khasra No. 1839 should not be withdrawn from Malik Siraj Din as Rajan etc. Can be adjusted in Hitar where they had entitlement of 64K-8M but had been given only 58K-17M. Malik Siraj Din had an entitlement of 49K- 13M but had been given 79K-7M in Hitar against the mode of petition (Tariqa Taqseem) which laid down that entitlement in Majha or Hitar should be given according to the possession and, therefore, the review may be accepted.
5. The review petition No. 04/1988 'Malik Siraj Din Versus Mst. Rajan etc." is barred by time to the extent of 6 days. The learned counsel for Malik Siraj Din stated that his client was under the impression that since his revision petition had been accepted by the Board of Revenue, therefore for the recourse to courts may not be necessary but on getting the copy of the order he found that khasra No. 1839 had been withdrawn from him which necessitated the present review petition. The learned counsel for Mst. Rajan had no objection to condonation of limitation and hence the delay was condoned.
6. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record as well as the sketch map produced by the Patwari. There are three conditions prescribed for entertaining a review petition under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act: i) Discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge, or could not be produced by the aggrieved person at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made; ii) Some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; and iii) Any other sufficient reason.
So far as the review Petition No. 04/1988 by Malik Siraj Din is concerned it does not meet any of these conditions. There is nothing new or important in the review petition (lodged by Malik Siraj Din on 4.1.1988) which appears to have been preferred in response to the Review Petition No. 268/1987 preferred by Mst. Rajan etc. On 16.11.1987 as an after thought. This review petition (No. 04/1988) is accordingly dismissed.
7. As regards the Review Petition No. 268/1987 "Mst. Rajan etc. Versus Siraj Din", Khasra No. 1839 is stated to be under structures partly and has also been alienated by Malik Siraj Din. Hence it cannot be given to Mst. Rajan etc. The impugned order therefore, cannot be implemented and its review, thereof appears to be necessary. The main reason for giving Khasra No. 1833 to Malik Siraj Din in the impugned order was his previous possession over it. According to the order dated 27.6.1985 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) Khasra No 1833 was included in Shamlat prior to consolidation. It was entered at Khewat No. 78, Khatauni No. 544 in Khatauni Ishtimal and it did not vest in Malik Siraj* Din. Malik Siraj Din was in possession of 61K-7M of land in Shamlat Deh which was much in excess of his entitlement of 7K-8M. He received 20K-1OM in consolidation operations whereas his Hissa Rasdi entitlement is only 7K-8M. The orders of both lower courts were therefore made on valid considerations, whereas the impugned order is unimplementable.
8. The upshot of this discussion is that the review petition No. 268/1987 succeeds; the order dated 18.8.1987 of the Member (Cons) is reviewed restoring the order dated 27.6.1985 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) and dated17.3.1985 of the ADC/Collector (Cons).