This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 19-12-1993 passed by learned Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore whereby he reviewed his earlier order dated 4-4- 1993 passed in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that Muhammad Gulzar respondent being an allottee of land measuring 76 Kanals, 15 Marlas in Chak No.105/10-R, Tehsil and District Khanewal was refused grant of proprietary rights on the sole ground that his father has already been granted proprietary rights in respect of another land prior to the dismissal of his appeal against the order dated 4-6-1979 passed by A.C./Assistant Collector vide order dated 11-10-1980 the land subject-matter of the litigation was allotted to respondent vide order dated 16-10-1979 by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Khanewal, which was cancelled by the Commissioner vide order dated 3-12-1979 and the land having been included in the schedule of temporary allotment was obtained by the petitioner in auction, but in the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector on a miscellaneous application allowed extension of lease of the said land in favour of Muhammad Gulzar respondent uptill Rabi 1991 vide order dated 29-5-1989. The revision petition filed by Noor Muhammad present petitioner against the order dated 28-11-1989 Passed by the Commissioner was accepted by the Member (Judicial-III ), Board of Revenue, Lahore vide order dated 4-4-1993 which was to the following effect: "I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted birth certificate of the respondent, according to which his date of birth is 20-8-1965. This shows that the time of original allotment in the year 1969, the respondent was hardly of 4 years of age. Under the law, a minor cannot be allotted State land. Further, the request of the respondent for grant proprietary rights of land in dispute had already been refused by the A.C./Assistant Collector vide order dated 11-10-1980 and the appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, vide order dated 15-3-1981. Both these orders were not chellenged at any higher forum and had attained finality. This being the position the respondent cannot be allowed to retain the allotment of the land which was obtained by the father when the petitioner was minor and further once had also been declared ineligible for grant of proprietary rights and that order had attained finality. The revision petitions are accordingly accepted."
Muhammad Gulzar, etc. The present respondents sought review of the above order dated 4-4-1993 passed by the Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue on the ground that the plea of minority was taken by Noor Muhammad for the first time in the revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue and that the allottee i.e. (Muhammad Gulzar, etc.) even if a minor at the time of allotment, he having attained majority pending final disposal of the matter became eligible to retain the land.
The learned Member, Board of Revenue taking the view that the issue of minority having raised in the revision petition for the first time, the allottee was entitled to be provided opportunity to produce the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence placed in support thereof. The review petition having been accepted, the case was remanded to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan for fresh decision after affording an opportunity to Muhammad Gulzar to meet the objection of his eligibility on the basis of minority, through documentary evidence and resolve the issue. Noor Muhammad, the petitioner in the present petition being aggrieved of the order dated 4-4-1993 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in review application filed this Constitutional petition before this Court questioning the validity of the same on the ground that the learned Member, Board of Revenue was not competent to set aside its own order passed in revisional jurisdiction in exercise of powers of review under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. He argued that the question of eligibility and the minority having already determined after hearing the parties could not be reopened by the Member, Board of Revenue in review. He in order to substantiate his arguments placed reliance on Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others (1991 SCM R 2307), and Muhammad Din and 2 others v. Muhammad Amin and 8 others (PLD 1994 SC 288).
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in reply has argued that writ petitioner being not allottee of the land at any stage has no locus standi to file the revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue or to argue the matter before this Court through this Constitutional petition. He placing reliance on section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 submitted that the scope of review is not confined only to the extent of mistake or error apparent on the face of record rather the order can be reviewed for any sufficient reason. He submitted that the respondent having been not provided proper opportunity to rebut the plea of minority raised against him for the first time before the learned Member, Board of Revenue during the hearing of the revision petition was condemned unheard. The sole question for determination shall be the scope of review under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 and the grounds on the basis of which an order can be reviewed.
5. Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 reads as under:-- "8. Review of orders by the Board.--(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed order made by the Board and who, 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 the record (or for other sufficient reason) desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply to the Board for a review of judgment and the Board may, after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them, pass such decree or order as the circumstances of the case require.
(2) Every application for a review of a decree or order under subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order."
6. The examination of section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 reveals that the scope of review is undoubtedly confined only to the grounds given therein that is:
(i) Discovery of new important matter,
(ii) Evidence which was not within the knowledge of a party or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed on having been committed a mistake or error apparent on the face.
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The reason on the basis of which the review was allowed undoubtedly being covered by the ground "for any other sufficient reason", the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The question of minority of the allottee having been not properly determined and resolved providing a fair opportunity to the respondent, the learned Member, Board of Revenue taking it an error going to the root of the matter and a major factor to decide the fate of the case consider it a sufficient and strong ground for review.
The error committed by the Member, Board of Revenue while disposing of the revision petition being apparent on the face of record has rightly been considered a ground for review. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not succeeded to show that the ground on the basis of which the review allowed was out of scope of power of review contemplated under section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The learned Member, Board of Revenue remanding the case to the Commissioner for fresh decision on the issue after providing opportunity to the parties to prove their respective stance through the evidence has committed no illegality to be questioned before this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition having no force stands dismissed accordingly.