' Brief facts of the case are that State land measuring 5 Kanals 12 Marlas comprising Khasra No, 43/21 situated in Chak No, 275/JB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad was given on lease to Nasir All s/o Tufail Muhammad, respondent, under Temporary Cultivation Scheme in open auction by the A.C./Collector, Faisalabad vide order dated 27-10-1972 for one year from Kharif 1973 to Rabi 1974.
The auction was approved by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector on 17-11-1972. This land was classified as "reserved Chiragah" in the Revenue Record. Some residents of the Chak through one Talib Hussain submitted an application to the Board of Revenue, Punjab requesting that as the disputed land was situated on Faisalabad-Jhang and Faisalabad-Gojra Roads, it was not suitable for the extension of Abadi keeping in view the heavy load of traffic on these roads. The Board of Revenue, Punjab after processing the case through the D.C. And Commissioner, excluded the disputed land from "Charagah" and allowed to resume State land 'measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising Khasra No,19 of Square No, 22 as "Charagah" for the extension of Abadi on 28-11-1981.
This order was implemented through Mutation No, 954 sanction on 10-7-1982 by which the Khasra No, 19 of Square No,22 measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas was resumed for Charapah for the extension of Abadi. The respondent submitted an application to the A.C./Collector, Faisalabad, for the grant of proprietary right of the disputed land under notification dated 3-9-1979. The A.C./Collector vide his order dated 5-9-1982 granted the proprietary rights to the respondent who deposited the entire price and got executed the, conveyance deed vide D.C./Collector, order dated 25-7-1983.
Muhammad Siddique etc. Residents of the Chak, moved a complaint to the Chief Minister of Punjab alleging fraudulent conversion of "Charagah land" into "Baqaya Sarkar" and obtaining the proprietary right unlawfully by the respondent. The Chief Minister's Inspection Team held an enquiry in the matter and inter alia suggested Suo Motu action by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, under section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, against the respondent for the cancellation of the conveyance deed. The Chief Minister, Punjab, vide his letter dated 2-4-1989 ordered the Board of Revnue, to take action accordingly.
2. My learned brother, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue took Cognizance of the matter in Suo Motu Revision No, 658/1989 and vide order dated 15-12-1991 kept intact the allotment made in the name of the respondent and allowed the conveyance deed to be maintained as such. Hence this review petition under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 against the order dated 15-12-1991.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the written arguments contended that this Hon'ble Court had failed to determine the factual points which clearly show that fraud had been perpetrated:--
(i) Khasra Girdawari for Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1976 has been tampered with `Charri Barani' was inserted in Kharif 1974, whereas 'Khali' was originally recorded by the Patwari. Word `Kamad Farm' has been inserted in Rabi 1976 whereas in Kharif 1977 the land has been shown as Banjar Qadeem which according to revenue term means lying vacant for eight consecutive crops.
(ii) In Khasra Girdawari Kharif 1980 the entry has been tampered with after showing it vacant. In Canal Irrigated areas how could the land in dispute be cultivated as Baraniin Kharif 1981. The land in dispute was `Maqsoos Charagah' and reserved for public purpose. Its proprietary rights could not have been given.
' That this Hon'ble Court failed to give any findings on the impugned order as the case record was not produced before the Court. Section 30(2) was incorporated in the Colonization of Government Lands Act after 1978 and the purpose behind this amended law was to defeat the fraudulent persons who with the collusion of Revenue staff acquired proprietary rights.
' The learned counsel placed reliance on 1984 SCM R 586 and contended that the present case was parallel to the cited case under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It was prayed that the review petition may be accepted and the impugned .
4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the conversion of disputed land to `Charagah Bakaya' was undisputed and had attained finality. The respondent was granted proprietary rights after clearing all stages of scrutiny vide order dated 25-1-1983 which has since been given effect in the Jamabandis etc. The petitioner and his party men have been making false complaints against the respondent since 1983 at all possible forums. There have been various enquiries against the respondent, but the complaints have been turned down being baseless and false. However, the respondent was being continuously harassed. The application for review can be moved by an aggrieved person against whom an order has been passed. No such order has been passed against the petitioner who has no cause of action or locus standi to move the review petition. The scope of review is very limited and it is competent only if there is any new and important evidence which with due diligence could not be produced previously or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Review is not rehearing of the case. The Khasra Girdawari, alleged to have been interpolated by the petitioner, has been tampered with at petitioner's behest because these entries were scrutinized every year while granting extension of lease. Again examination and scrutiny was done up to the level of Collector when proprietary rights were granted. Thus review is not maintainable. The learned counsel further argued that the authority referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner (1984 SCM R 586) pertained to section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Which was not applicable because the facts of that case were quite different from the present case. The present review was under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act on which is a special law whereas Civil Procedure Code was a general law. In the presence of general and special or local laws, the latter shall prevail to the exclusion of general law.
It was prayed that the review being incompetent may be rejected.
5. I have considered the arguments and have very carefully perused the case record including various inquiry reports and other related documents and also the record of Suo Motu Revision No, 658/1989 decided on 15-12-1991 (i,e, the impugned order). In the notes taken by my learned predecessor available on the file tampering of the record was one of the arguments. It was alleged that the land in dispute was still not cultivated and Khasra Girdawari was fudged. In the impugned order the contention of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have been reproduced and it is clearly mentioned that the Court had seen the record produced by the Patwari and the Colony Clerk in the Court and my learned predecessor concluded that "no fraud seems to be committed by the respondent in this matter. Every step and action seems regular according to law".
6. The three essentials of section $ of the Board of Revenue Act are:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the .Exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was; ' Or
(ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record ' and
(iii) for other sufficient reason.
Appreciation and reappraisal of the evidence or findings does not fall within the ambit of section 8 ibid. All points raised by the petitioner have already been covered in the impugned order and it is not for me to reappraise the evidence. As far as of finding in the impugned order are concerned, I agree with my learned predecessor that everything seems to be done regularly and properly according to the prescribed procedure. Tampering of the record was not detected throughout the long process of auction and extension of lease, the change of classification up to the Board of Revenue and grant of proprietary rights etc. However, I would not like to make any further observation regarding this aspect of the case because of a pending enquiry before DC/Collector, Faisalabad. That inquiry in the tampering of the record as a sequel to CMIT probe, is pending in the office of the DC/Collector, Faisalabad and decision is held up due to the pendency of the present case in the Board of Revenue. Till it is established that the record was tampered with at the behest of the respondent, no action can be taken under section 8 for reviewing the order of my learned predecessor. The instant review petition therefore, does not qualify under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to the costs in this case.
7. The order in this case was reserved which shall now be communicated to the parties.
Review dismissed.