' This review petition has been filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 against the order dated 26-6-1987, passed by the then learned Member (Cons.), whereby he rejected the revision of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue estate Saula, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 28-8-1984. The respondents feeling aggrieved filed a time-barred appeal before the Collector (Cons.) who vide his order dated 26-3-1985 remanded the same to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer in compliance with the remand order, submitted his report to the learned Collector (Cons:), and the learned Collector (Cons.) vide his order dated 23-12-1985 rejected the same. This order was challenged in the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who vide his order dated 29-3-1986 again made the Khata of the parties joint. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Member (Cons.), who vide his impugned order rejected the same. Hence this revision petition.
3. Counsel of the respective parties were heard at length. Relevant record and connected documents produced by Munshi Noor Muhammad, Patwari were also examined.
4. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that it was wrongly concluded that the Consolidation Officer had first kept the Khata of the parties as joint and had separated it later on. In fact two separate schemes No, 22 of Nazir Ahmad and Scheme No, 32 of Bashir Ahmad, petitioner were framed right from the beginning. It was also argued that as the amendment has taken place in the Ordinance, since 1976 and joint Khatas could be freely separated therefore, the Court had wrongly relied upon PLD 1975 Lahore 228. Moreover, the petitioner after taking possession of his separate Wanda had made considerable investment and had improved the quality of land. It was also claimed that the respondents had now no objection if the Wandas were kept separate. Under the circumstances, it was argued that as all these patent facts were ignored by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, the impugned order suffered from serious irregularities which was clearly liable to be reviewed under section 8 of the said Act.
' Refusing all these contentions with equal force, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the earlier Scheme No, 22 was not at all exclusive but it was a joint one. It was at a later stage that by deleting the name of the petitioner from Scheme No, 22 a new scheme at Serial No,32 was prepared. Thus, the preparation of second scheme was ab initio, null and void as the Consolidation Officer was not legally competent to review his earlier order. The fact that the earlier Scheme No,22 was a joint one of all the co-sharers was further proved by the fact that the area allocated therein was much larger as compared to the subsequent Scheme No,32 which was exclusively prepared in favour of the petitioner unlawfully. Moreover, it was not possible to res judicata and reagitate the merits of the case in a review petition on which a specific finding had already been given. The scope of review under the aforesaid legal provisions being of extremely limited nature, it could not be attracted to the case of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that ground of misinterpretation of law or misappreciation or non-appreciation of law cannot be taken up in review petition. In this connection reliance was placed on PLD 1990 Revenue 12. In the said case-law, it has been held that "Reviewing Court is not competent to reinterpret law where it wrongly or incompetently interpreted or applied, as taking a different view would virtually make Reviewing Court of appeal which is patently contrary to intention of law. A Reviewing Court, not a highest Court, could not sit in judgment over decision of a Court of equal jurisdiction".
5. As regards the reliance by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on PLD 1975 Lahore 228, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the same view was further strengthened in PLD 1989 Revenue 14 and 1990 CLC 1965 leaving no room for any doubt that in partitioning of a joint Khata consent of all the co-sharers is mandatory. Under the circumstances, it was argued that this review petition being without any substance and merit be dismissed.
6. I have given careful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel for the respective parties and the facts of the case. From the perusal of the record, it has been clearly established that earlier the Consolidation Officer had prepared the Consolidation Scheme No, 22 and the Khata of all the co-sharers was kept joint. From the record produced before this Court by the Patwari, it has been noticed that it contained much larger area and was obviously prepared by keeping the Wanda of all the co-sharers as joint one. Later on, the name of the petitioner was deleted as separate Consolidation Scheme No,32 was prepared. This was totally uncalled for and legally untenable. It was not within the legal competency of the Consolidation Officer to draw a new scheme as no review power was available to him. Thus, subsequent Scheme No,32 was ab initio, null and void as it was ultra vires of the powers of Consolidation Officer. Moreover, consent of all the co-sharers as held in the impugned order was mandatory which has been further elaborated in PLD 1989 Revenue 14 and 1990 CLC 1965. The fact that the respondent had now joined hands with the petitioner and had no objection to the separation of the Wanda is absolutely no ground for entertaining this review petition. I am fortified in coming to this conclusion by the view held in PLD 1986 Revenue 122. In the said case law, it was laid down that the mere fact that parties had compromised subsequent to decision in revision by Member, Board of Revenue, was not at all a ground for review. The learned counsel has failed to prove any glaring mistake apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of any important new material evidence not earlier in the knowledge of the petitioner which could not be produced on account of circumstances beyond his control or any other sufficient ground whereby the legal provisions contained in section 8 of the said Act could be invoked in this case.
7. In view of the facts stated above, I am led to conclude that there is no substance and merit in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Review dismissed.