' This writ petition has been filed to assail the operation under the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960, in village Ransekey, Tehsil Phalia District, Gujrat.
' The brief history of the case is that the scheme framed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance was confirmed on 31-7-1975. The petitioner and others filed appeals separately before the Collector who vide order dated 13-8-1983 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Gujrat, for framing fresh proposals. In pursuance to the remand order, the Consolidation Officer submitted his proposal on 5-7-1985 to the Collector who vide order dated 25-8-1985 made certain amendments in the Wandas of the parties. It may be stated here that the petitioner also consented in favour of the proposal framed by the Consblidation Officer. The petitioner again challenged the aforesaid order by way of preferring an appeal which was dismissed and against the aforesaid order, a revision petition was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide order 30-10-1990 and the said order has been assailed through this writ petition.
' After hearing the learned counsel at length and having gone through the various orders passed, it stands proved on the record that the petitioner himself stated that he had been rightly accommodated during the consolidation operation but grievance was made out of the amendments made in his Wanda by Collector vide order dated 25-8-1985. It is noteworthy to mention that against the order dated 25-8-1985, no appeal was filed by the petitioner with a view to save himself from litigation. After completing the Misal Haqiat, the record of the village was sent to the Mahal side and since then, the possessions have also been changed.
' It is obvious that the conduct of the petitioner disentitled him to seek ignored but if error has material bearing on the final result of the case it can be made a ground for review. Scope of review is completely different from appeal. The review proceeds on the basis of error apparent on the record whereas in appeal all questions of fact and law are considered by the appellate Court."
11. Clearly the power to review under section 8 of the Act being limited, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was not competent to set aside the order passed by his predecessor and substituting it by sustaining the basic consolidation scheme dated 13-6-1985 as confirmed by the Consolidation Officer between the contesting parties, inasmuch as, there has neither been discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the respondents' knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed by Mr. Hafizullah Ishaq, the then learned Member, Board of Revennue, nor the order passed by the latter suffered from any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor there were any sufficient reason warranting review within the ambit of section 8 of the Act.
12. The grounds on which the private respondents sought review related to the merits of the case and the same could not be permitted to be re-opened by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in the purported exercise of his power under section 8 of the Act.
In view of the above, the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 26-2- 1991 is hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Any action or proceeding taken in pursuance c thereof is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the order dated 28-8-1990 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue shall hold the field with all consequential benefits. The writ petition is accepted with costs.