ORDER SYED AAL-E-AHMAD, MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB.- This Review Petition has been directed against the order dated 1.11.1994 passed in ROR No.812/1991 by Mr. Jiwan Khan, the then Member (Judicial-Ill), Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the point of limitation, whereas no limitation is provided for proceedings initiated under Section 30 (2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 as such the learned Member has erred while disposing of the revision petition. He further contended that the respondent could not dispose of the land, before the expiry of 10 years, from the date of the conveyance deed, as provided under Condition No. (Sic ) of the Gujranwala Oustee's Scheme, and prayed that the review petition may be accepted.
3. On the other had the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the learned Member has considered the revision petition of the petitioners and found that it had been filed after a delay of two years which was not explained by the petitioners; as such the learned Member dismissed the same on the point of limitation. As regards the sale of the land before the expiry of ten years, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that after the execution of conveyance deed the provisions of Condition No.14 of the Gujranwala Oustee's Scheme are not attracted in this case and prayed that the review petition may be rejected.
4. I have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and examined the impugned order. The learned Member while disposing of the revision petition had considered all the legal matters involved in the case. According to Section 8 of the Board of Revenue, Act, 1957, "review is only competent from the 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 made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason". All the contentions which have now been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner had already been considered by the learned Member while disposing of the revision petition vide his order dated 1.11.1994. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any fresh ground for review of the order passed in ROR No.812/1991. The review petition being without any force is here by dismissed.