HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- This review petition has been filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, against the order dated 15.7.1985, passed by the Member (Consolidation), whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the revenue estate Tehra Gujran, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot, was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 31.12.19981. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal in the court of the Collector (Consolidation), Sialkot. Another appeal, titled "Muhammad Shafi. Vs. Fateh Mohammad etc." was also preferred. The Collector (Consolidation), vide his order dated 15.2.1983, ordered the partitioning of the joint Khata of Mohammad Shafi, Ghulam Nabi and Inayat Ali, while the rest of the respondents khata was kept intact. This order was challenged through two appeals in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), who, vide his order dated 16.5.1983, rejected the appeal of the petitioners and accepted the appeal of Inayat Ali. The petitioners therefore preferred a revision petition before the learned Member (Consolidation), who dismissed it with his impugned order dated 15.7.1985, holding that the petitioners were given plots on their previous holdings and the number of pre- consolidation plots was also reduced to 5 compact plots. Hence this review petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments stressed only one point, i.e., the petitioners had suffered a grave loss and their entitlement could not be considered to have been fully met by giving them land under a river and a 'nullah. He forcefully argued that the ends of justice had not been met and raised the rather philosophical question whether this could be treated as justice. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that this matter had received attention at various levels. And had been finally disposed of by my learned predecessor under his order dated 15.7.1985. It was contended that the review petition did not meet the mandatory conditions laid down under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act as it did not contain any new or an important matter of evidence or some mistake or error in the record or any other sufficient reason and was liable to dismissal.
4. I have very carefully and closely considered the facts of the case and indeed the philosophical question posed by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the quality of justice in the instant case. It was held in the impugned order by my learned predecessor that the joint Khata of Ghulam Nabi, Inayat Ali and Mohammad Shaft, ail brothers, was partitioned on the petition of Inayat Ali before the Consolidation Officer and all the three brothers had given their consent therefor. This partition of joint Khata was annulled, by the Collector (Consolidation) vide his order dated 15.2.1983 but was restored by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in revision on 16.5.1983. My learned predecessor further Held that from the sketch map, it was evident that the petitioners had been given their 'wanda' according to their previous holdings and the number of plots was also reduced from 10 to 5, which also met the objectives of the Consolidation.
5. From the memorandum of review petition or the arguments, I do not find that the petitioners have brought up any new matter or evidence or point to agitate this matter in review. All their points have already been -decided. As regards the question of the quality of justice, it has to be evaluated, measured, determined and judged according to the standard or context or frame of reference set by the law as it exists at present, which is the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. No illegality or irregularity has been established in the proceedings before the previous fora. I therefore do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order in review and dismiss the review petition accordingly