' This reivew petition is directed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, against the order, dated 2-2-1989 of my learned predecessor whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Sivya, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 29-10-1986. The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed an. Appeal in the Court of the Collector (Cons.) who vide his order, dated 21-11-1987 rejected it. He observed that the petitioners held more land in their joint Khata, prior to consolidation, than their entitlement. They were accommodated during the consolidation operations according to their entitlement but now they wanted to get superior land in one compact block.
5. The petitioners have therefore not suffered any deficiency in their entitlement. The argument regarding superiority of land towards the north of he petitioners assailed this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala Division who vide his order dated 23-10-1988 dismissed the revision petition holding that the petitioners had been allocated land according to their entitlement keeping in view the classification of land. The petitioners thereupon went up in revision in the Board of Revenue which was dismissed in limine on 21-2-1989. Their contention about deficiency in their entitlement was not borne out from the record. Hence this review petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not given land according to their entitlement at different places during the consolidation operations and that the impugned order may be reviewed on the following grounds:---
(i) That the land lying in the northern portion of this revenue estate was more valuable and superior than the land lying on its southern side. The petitioners had a pre-consolidation entitlement of 3 acres on the southern side but were given 5 acres. On the northern side they had 9 acres but had been given only 6 acres. Thus they had suffered in their overall entitlement. This was a mistake on record justifying recall of the impugned order.
(ii) The petitioners were co-sharers in four joint khatas with most of the respondents and had an individual khata also and therefore their shares in the joint khata should have been added to their separate khata to enable them to have one compact block during the consoldiation operations.
5. I have perused the record, considered the arguments and have had the petitioners' entitlement prepared afresh. The petitioners had total pre-consolidation entitlement of 202K-12M and they were given 202K-16M as is evident from the following table:--- {{TABLE}} Scheme No.Pre-consolidationPost-consolidation Class I Class II TotalClass IClass IITotal K-M K-M K-M K-M K-M K-M 12/11 8-08 101-18 110-068-09101-18110-07 19/17 92-06 92-06 92-0992-09 8-08 194-04 202-128-09194-07202-16 {{TABLE}} ' the village is not relevant at this stage because if this were so then it should have been incorporated in the Masavada Tariqa Taqseem at the relevant time by consensus of the right- holders/Advisory Committee so that the consolidation :scheme could have been formulated accordingly. In fact this argument has been introduced at the last stage of the litigation and hence not tenable. The consolidation scheme based on the classification of land appears to have been correctly made and the petitioners have also received their full entitlement in various categories as has been held by the Courts below and also by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order.
Similarly the argument regarding adding of petitioners' share in the joint khata to their separate khata has also been taken up for the first time in the review petition. It was never agitated at all in the three previous stages as is evident from the memoranda of petitioners appeals/revisions.
Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 lays down three conditions for review which are:---
(i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due deligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced;
(ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; and
(iii) for any other sufficient reason.
' None of these three conditions has been met. No infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out which would necessitate its review. Further that the review petition is barred by time to the extent of 14 days although the petitioners were present when the impugned order was made. The application for condonation of delay just states that the petitioner was "taken seriously ill on account of dysentry and fever" but neither a medical certificate nor an affidavit of the petitioner regarding his illness has been placed on record. Thus there is hardly any reason for condonation of delay.
6. In view of the foregoing the review petition fails both on limitation the merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Review dismissed.