' This review petition is directed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Punjab Act, 1957, against the order, dated 7-9-1988, passed by my learned predecessor whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Niaz Beg vide his order dated 29-9-1977 confirmed the consolidation scheme of the Revenue Estate Niaz Beg, Tehsil and District Lahore, under section 10(3) of the Consoildation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Feeling aggrieved the respondent Mst. Qaisara Sheraz preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) whereby she sought restoration of Kham No,5073 in place of Kham No,5066 on the basis of her previous title. The Collector (Cons.) vide his order dated 12-6-1979 accepted the same and made certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties. The petitioners went up in appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his order, dated 3-11-1984 dismissed it, holding that the appeal was badly hit by limitation and was also devoid of merits. He declared that the petitioners could not convince the Court in respect of limitation. It was important to note that the petitioners got interest in Kham No,5073 (4 Kanals) only after the passing of the confirmation order which had earlier been transferred by sale and duly mutated in favour of the respondent. As such, the petitioners could not be considered as an aggrieved party and were not entitled to hearing even.
The petitioners further challenged the said order in the Court of my predecessor who vide his impugned order dismissed it. He held in his order that the respondent did purchase a part of Khasra No,362(old) whereas the petitioners purchased old Khasra Nos. 327 and 332 which are not in any way connected with the former number. So, as compared to the petitioners, the respondent had a preferential right over it. The petitioners also were not scheme-holder and therefore, they had no locus standi to agitate the matter. Consequently they were not impleaded party before the Collector (Cons.) as the real tie was between the scheme-holders. It was also a well-settled point of law that no claim for a piece of land for the purposes of Consolidation of Holdings, can be admitted on the basis of possession without title. So on the basis of possession alone, the petitioners had no case. Hence this review petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffered from patent jurisdictional defect. This was an error apparent on the face of record that the petitioners had no locus standi to agitate the case not being a scheme-holder. The petitioners had purchased an area of 4 Kanals through registered deeds executed on 15-5-1975 i.e, before the confirmation of the scheme and reported these registered deeds to the Patwari Halqa through the Deputy Commissioner/Collector and this factum was reflected in reports Nos.9970 and 13647 of Roznamcha Waqiati, dated 22-12-1976. This fact by itself was sufficient to necessitate review of the impugned orders. The petitioners were required to be compensated for the land which had validly been purchased prior to consolidation. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the case against the respondents Mrs. Qaisara Sheraz. Etc. And requested for compensation out of Mushtarka Khata available in the scheme of Niaz Beg. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the following authorities:--
(i) PLD 1984 Rev. Page 21, (ii) PLD 1984 Rev. (sic), (iii) 1988 SCM R 1009, (iv) PLD 1981 Rev. Page 1, (v) PLD 1974 Rev. Page 64, (vi) PLD 1985 SC page 208 and (vii) PLD 1982 Rev. Page 71.
' In the first authority cited by the learned counsel it was held that the Canal View Cooperative Housing Society was purchaser of hundreds of Kanals of land from land owners of village prior to confirmation of scheme which was finalized in their absence and without notice to them and therefore, it had every right to ation of the consolidation scheme to get restored its land. The third authority pertains to the report entered in Roznamcha Waqiati, which was upheld. The fourth authority pertains to sanctioning of mutations which were not designed to substantiate any title while the sixth authority sets out in detail the manner and scope of the revision petition under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance and the last authority pertains to rectification of irregularities committed during the preparation of consolidation scheme. The remaining citations are not relevant for the purposes of the case.
4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the claim against the respondents, therefore, there was no argument from their side in rebuttal of the petitioners' averments.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. Section 24 of the Ordinance ibid and Rule 27 of Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1960, provide that no right-holder during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings can transfer any part of his holding without the permission in writing from the Consolidation Officer. And this is the fundamental point in this case.
Although the registered deeds are said to have been executed on A 15-5-1985 when this revenue estate was already under consolidation proceedings and these transactions are duly recorded in the Roznamcha Waqiati under reports dated 22-12-1976 (i.e, after more than 1-1/2 years) yet the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to prove that the requisite permission for transfer of this property was obtained from the Consolidation Officer. Several adjournments were given to the learned counsel for the petitioners for adducing this evidence before me but without any effect. Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 provides for review of the orders made by the Board of Revenue in the following cases:--
(i) Discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the petitioner when the order was made.
(ii) Some mistake or error apparent on the face of record.
(iii) For any other sufficient reason.
Since the registered deeds were not executed with the permission of the Consolidation Officer as required under the law and rules, therefore, these cannot be taken into consideration by the consolidation authorities. Hence there is little matter in the petition which would necessitate review of the impugned order. In these circumstances the review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Review dismissed.