' Late Khair Din, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in the titled review petition applied for lease of State land in Chak No, 143/GB, Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur under 5 years Temporary Cultivation Scheme in the year 1976. His case was submitted to the District Collector with the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Collector. The case was sent back to the A.C./Collector for ascertaining the eligibility of Khair Din in open assembly according to the instructions of the Board.
After the needful, the case was once again sent to the District Collector in the year 1979 with the recommendation of the A.C/ Collector which was again remanded to the A.C/Collector by the District Collector. The case was once again resubmitted in the year 1979 but in the meantime lease of state land other than by open auction had been stopped by the Board. Khair Din applied in the year 1983 for grant of proprietary rights of the said land which was rejected by the A.C/Collector. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner upheld the orders of the A.C/Collector. Late Kair Din had been recorded as illicit coultivater of the said land ever since he took unauthorised possession of it.
2. The present petitioners Muhammad Aslam, etc. Are heirs of Nazir Ahmad who had applied for allotment of the aforesaid land as alternate to the land allotted to them in Chak No, 57/DB, Tehsil Yazman under 15 years Lease Scheme for which his request for grant of proprietary rights had been refused on the ground that the said land was situated in the prohibited zone.
3. Mr. Asad Ali Shah, learned Member (Colonies) decided the two revision petitions filed by Khair Din vide his order, dated 5-12-1988 holding "'Chair Din is not entitled to any concession about his so- called lease. This lease was specifically refused right from the start by the DC/Collector and the petitioner did not avail of any remedy against the repeated orders of the DC/Collector," Regarding the claim of Nazir Ahmad, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners the learned Member had in the cited order observed, "I therefore, direct that auction of the lease of the impugned land be held first and if it remains available it may be given to Nazir Ahmad, otherwise he may be given any other State land." Sardar Muhammad, etc. The present respondents filed review petition against the order of the learned Member dated 5-12-1988. Mr. Raza Ali, the learned Member (Colonies), accepted the review petition and regarding claim of Khair Din stated as under:-- "It is, however, evident that the lease of land in dispute i,e, 64 Kanals under five years lease scheme was recommended by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Yazman in 1976 in the name of Khair Din deceased but the District Collector had not confirmed the same even till 1979 for the reason that ban was imposed by the Board of Revenue. I am afraid that the ban was imposed three years later and could not have had any retrospective effect. Therefore, the District Collector was not justified in refusing the lease recommended in 1976 in favour of Khair Din deceased. However, delay in challenging the order of the former Member (Colonies), is condoned with a penalty of Rs,5,000."
' With this , the learned Member reviewed the order of his predecessor.
4. The present review petition has been filed against this order of the learned Member (Colonies), dated 22-12-1994.
5. The power of review is very limited as laid down in section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which can be invoked only on three specific points given as under:--
(1) 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 the petitioner at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made;
(2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(3) For any other sufficient reason.
6. If this power was to be used by the Board for rectifying the decision of a learned Member which may suffer from incorrect interpretation and application of law or non-appreciation of facts, it would lead to an unending cycle of litigation. The power, therefore, is not available for any successor to adjudge the validity in law of the order of his predecessor. Since the law restraints me from interfering with a decision of my predecessor on premises other than those stated at para. 5, the grounds of review petition not embodying any of the ingredients of section 8. Cannot succeed and is accordingly rejected.