' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the revisional order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 17-9-1995 setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, Collector and Assistant Collector-II Grade whereby Mutation No,5 for the transfer of proprietary rights in respect of land in dispute was sanctioned in the name of Muhammad Sadiq, the predecessor of the petitioner to the exclusion of his other brothers.
2. In support of this petition, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the revision filed by the respondents before the Member, Board of Revenue was not competent as once the Commissioner has exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Board of Revenue could not exercise the same power. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has heavily relied upon Ahmad Khan and 2 others v. Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others (PLD 1986 Peshawar 67).
3. The learned counsel has further argued that in any case, the appeal of the respondents before the Assistant Commissioner was barred by time and was dismissed as such and the Member, Board of Revenue could not ignore the question of limitation. In the last, the learned counsel maintained that the allotment was made to Muhammad Sadiq alone and Fard Taqseem which shows to the contrary was forged and fictitious.
4. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under section 164 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Board of Revenue has been conferred vast powers of revision in respect of all orders passed by the subordinate Revenue Officers including Commissioner. There is no bar either express or implicit in the aforesaid provision which takes away the power of the Board of Revenue to revise the order passed in revision by the Commissioner unlike section 115(3), C.P.C. Furthermore, sections 4 and 5 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 also confer revisional jurisdiction upon the Board of Revenue. Unfortunately this provision was not brought to the notice of the Peshawar High Court in Ahmad Khan's case relied upon by the learned counsel. Be that as it may, it is to be seen that the judgment of the Peshawar High Court is wholly based upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Haji Samad Khan and another v. Khalid Khan and others (1985 SCM R 770) which arose under the North- West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950 and not under the Land Revenue Act. A comparison of the provisions of N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 with that of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 clearly bears out the distinction that while under the former revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised either by the Board of Revenue or the Commissioner, there is no such limitation under the West Pakistan Beard of Revenue Act, 1957 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 which as observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Khuda Bakhsh v. Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and 3 others (1976 SCM R 26) and by this Court in Khair Din v. I.U. Khan, Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue etc. (PLD 1968 Lah. 11) are very wide and not capable of any such limitation. Reference may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Dhani Khan v. M.Z. Khan (Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan) and another (PLD 1963 Lah. 583). This conclusion stands fortified from the underlining made by the Supreme Court on the use of the words "or" in section 50 of the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950.
5. As regards the other contention suffice it to say that it is by now well settled that no Constitutional petition can be maintained in matters arising out of proceedings for mutation. It is open to the petitioners to establish their title before the Civil Court and show that the allottee of the property was Muhammad Sadiq alone and not the entire family. The question as to whether or not Fard Taqseem produced before the Board of Revenue was forged and fictitious cannot be decided in the present proceedings. Be that as it may, substantial justice appears to have been done by the Member, Board of Revenue on the basis of available record before him. No interference is called for in the impugned order.
' Dismissed in limine.