' JAVED IQBAL, C.J.--This is a Constitutional petition preferred on behalf of Munawar Kashan and Adnan Ahmed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) with the following prayer:-- "It is accordingly respectfully prayed that impugned order, dated 11-3-1998 passed by learned Board of Revenue may be determined' to have been passed unlawfully and without any lawful authority and be consequently set aside; adjudging that the review petition filed by the respondent D.C. Is not lawfully entertianable and accordingly recorded to be dismissed."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners were declared as occupancy tenants vide order, dated 1-9-1996 by M.B.R. And being aggrieved review application was filed by Government of Balochistan through D.C./Collector, Quetta which was accepted vide order, dated 11-3-1998 by the Board of Revenue consisting of three members, hence this petition.
3. It is mainly contended by Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate that under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 a review is only provided to be competent against a decree or order made by the Board which has been defined under section 2(1) of the said Act and it could not have been made against order of Member-III of the Board of Revenue who was fully competent to pass such order. It is next contended that the review application was never filed within time and meoreso, the provisions as contained in section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be pressed into service being inapplicable. It is argued that review application can only be filed by an aggrieved person and D.C.
By no stretch of imagination can be termed as such. It is next contended that neither any discovery of new and important. Matter nor evidence was there and as such the question of review dos not arise. It is urged with vehemence that the case of petitioners does not fall within the purview of Notification, dated 6-12-1995 which has been interpreted. Wrongly and a serious prejudice has been caused against the petitioners. It is pointed out that the D.C. Himself had admitted the petitioners as Bazgar which aspect of the, matter has been ignored by the learned Board of Revenue while accepting review application. It is also contended that the Board itself in recent past has decided that Bairoon-AzLane property should be entered jointly in the name of Government as well as landowners concerned but the said decision has not been followed in letter and spirit by the Board itself. It is also urged that the Assistant District Attorney appeared on behalf of Government and thus the question of any notice to Government or D.C. Does not arise. It is also mentioned that the announcement of judgment was made without any notice and accordingly the announcement itself is illegal. Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate further argued that the judgment is based on conjectural presumption and arguments advanced and documentary evidence relied was never considered. It is urged that the Notification, dated 18-2-1977 has not been interpreted in its true perspective.
4. Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate appeared for respondents and strenuously controverted the view- point as canvassed by Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate and contended that the impugned judgment is free from. Any illegality or irregularity and does not call for any interference because the conclusion as derived by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law and settled norms of justice. It is also mentioned that. Board was fully competent to review the order passed by learned Single Member, Board of Revenue whereby no attention whatsoever was paid to the record of the case and revenue laws and Notification issued time to time were ignored without any rhyme and reason. It is urged with vehemence that learned Member, Board of Revenue-III was not competent to entertain the revision filed by the petitioners and thus order, dated 1-9-1996 is ab initio void because the powers as conferred upon under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act could only be exercised in case where some order has been passed by some subordinate revenue officer but the revision was entertained by learned Member, Board of Revenue-III without keeping in view the provisions as contained in section 164. It is pointed out that Abdul Manan and his sons were never in possession of any State land as Morrosi Bazgar and they could not have transferred a better title to the petitioners and factually with connivance and abetment of revenue staff valuable State land has been usurped. It is also mentioned that occupancy tenant has its own peculiar characteristic and only those persons could have been granted the status of occupancy tenants who were cultivating the land prior to or on 18-2-1977 and so mentioned in record of rights. It is contended that since the order 'of MBR-III was ab initio void hence the question of any limitation does not arise.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated. On behalf of petitioners and for respondents in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. It is worth mentioning that Abdul Marian and his sons were not Morrosi Bazgars as the land was purchased at very belated stage and hence they could not have acquired the status of Morrosi Bazgars and thus they were not in a position to confirm such status to the petitioners who figured in subsequently.
The Notification, dated 6-12-1995 has been kept intact and declared lawful (Civil Petition No,509 of 1997 and Civil Petition No,3 of 1998) and presently the matter is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court but no stay has been granted. The mutation entry of the petitioners (Mutation Entry No,126, has been challenged in pursuant to said Notification which holds the field till now and thus no illegality whatsoever has been committed. It seems proper to reproduce hereinbelow Notification of even number, dated 6-12-1995:-- BOARD OF REVENUE BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA ' Dated Quetta, the 6th December, 1995 NOTIFICATION ' No .180-14/93/Rev . --Whereas repeated complaints regarding trnasgression of jurisdiction and illegal disposal of unmeasured State land were received by the Government of Balochistan in Quetta Tehsil.
' And whereas, after enquiries conducted by subordinate Revenue Officers of this Board it was proved that proceedings conducted by Settlement, Officer and his subordinate staff were in clear violation of scope of work assigned to them through this Board's Notification No,100-14/Revenue, dated 12-11-1992 with particular reference to subsection (3) of section 40 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967.
' And whereas, sufficient evidence has been placed before the' Government of Balochistan to prove the abovesaid and also the fact that besides wastage of precious Government lands, various tribal disputes have also arisen as a result of illegal conferment of titles/rights/interests in clear violation of law. Notifications, orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time in respect of these lands.
' Now, therefore, with prior approval of Government of Balochistan and the exercise of powers vested in it, the Board of Revenue, Balochistan hereby directs immediate cancellation of all titles/rights/interests acquired directly or indirectly through the process of settlement work started with effect from Board of Revenue Balochistan's Notification No, 180-14/84 Rev:, dated 28-10-1986 and consequently through Notification No,180-14/Rev., dated 8-11-1987. This will, however, have no effect on legitimate titles/rights/interests acquired earlier than 28th October, 1986 in. Respect of all area under settlement operation after the above date and all valid transactions made by landowners and their successorsin-interest in respect of lands validly owned by them. The revenue record prepared by Settlement Staff is transferred to D.C./Collector, Quetta District with immediate effect for necessary entries in the relevant record and resumption of State land in accordance with rights and titles in relevant record before issuance of the abovesaid notification.
(Sd.) (Muhammad Afzal), Member-III Board of Revenue, Balochistan.
A bare persual of the abovementioned Notification would reveal that the transactions/titles made/confirmed prior to 28-10-1986 were not questioned meaning thereby that their validity was accepted. It is worth mentioning here that Abdul Marian had acquired the title of Morrosi Bazgar on 2-3-1992 which has rightly been cancelled vide abovementioned Notification because all the titles and transactions confirmed/made after 28-10-1986 were declared as unlawful and cancelled. In our considered opinion Khasras Nos.574/1, 574/2 and 574/3 came into being as a result of settlement work started in 1986 and thus it can be said with certainty that the provisions as contained in Notification, dated 6-12-1995 were applicable and thus it has been cancelled in accordance with the said Notification and illegality whatsoever has been committed. It may not be out Of place to mention here that Abdul Manan had transferred the land in dispute on 11-4-1994 vide Mutation No,108 and thus the same has rightly been cancelled vide Notification of even number, dated 6-12-1996. As mentioned earlier Abdul Manan could not have conferred -a better title in favour of petitioners. The Mutation Entry No,126, dated 10-10-1995 is also illegal for the simple reason that the initial transaction was not lawful since Abdul Manan was not having lawful status of Morrosi Bazgar hence it could not have been transferred to the petitioners. The full Board of Revenue while dilating upon the controversy has rightly observed as follows:-- "Furthermore, a deep scrutiny of the record reveals the following facts with regard to the case of Abdul Manan and sons (sellers of the disputed land to the present private respondents).
(a) (i) Vide Notification No,180-14/84-Rev., dated 28-10-1986 the Board of Revenue under section 116
(1) of the Land Revenue Act had directed the survey of Quetta Tehsil except Quetta Town. Again by another Notification No,180-14/84-Rev., dated 8-11-1987 in supersession of the previous Notification, dated 28-10-1986, the No,180-14-90-Rev., dated 16-12-1991, the Board of Revenue directed the survey and settlement of all unmeasured (Baroon-AzLine) land in Quetta Tehsil under section 116(1) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. However, this Notification of the 16-12-1991 was withdrawn by a 4th Notification No,180-14-91/Rev., dated 12-11-1992 and the Settlement Officer, Quetta was directed to carry on the settlement under section 40 of the Land Revenue Act as already directed vide second Notificatibn of 8-11-1987.
(ii) As a result of first Notification, dated 28-10-1986 unmeasured State land including the present one was entered in the name of Provincial Government of Balochsitan and in Bazgar's Column Deputy Commissioner; the detail of which is given as under:--
(1) Khasra No,574/1 measuring 81 Rods 36 Poles.
(2) .Khasra No,574/2 measuring 83 Rods 2 Poles.
(3) Khasra No,574/3 measuring 88 Rods.
(iii) By the issuance of Notification No,180-4/86-Rev., dated 8-11-1987, the work earlier done lost its legality. But on 25-1-1992 a time-barred review petition was made to the Settlement Officer, Qeutta by Abdul Manan and sons named Abdul Qadir, Muhammad Awaz and Ghulam Muhammad praying therein for entering them as owners against the nullified record. Simultaneously, Abdul Manan and sons made another application to the Board of Revenue which was also received by the Settlement Officer with illegal directions, of the Ex-Member-II, Board of Revenue in Letter No,200-8/89-Rev: dated 2-3-1992 i,e, the applicants (Abdul Manan and Sons) may be entered against Khasras mentioned above as 'Morrosi Bazgars'. An effort was made to locate the record pertaining to this direction but failed to do so. Most probably it was not issued by the Board of Revenue. The Despatch Register also does not confirm its issuance.
(iv) The Settlement Officer, Quetta complied with these so-called illegal directions and ordered the entry of Abdul Manan and Sons as 'Maroosi Bazgars' against nullified Khasra numbers. The Settlement Officer also took help from the provisions of the Notification No,301-8/77-Rev./729-48, dated 18-2-1977.
(v) After getting entries in their name, Abdul Manan and sons vide Mutation No,108/1 which was entered allegedly in back date, gifted 120 Rods, 7 Poles to private respondents named Munawar Kashan and Adnan Ahmed who then succeeded in getting themselves entered in the record-of- rights as 'owners'.
(b) On receipt of complaints regarding transgression of jurisdiction and illegal disposal of unmeasured State land, the Board of Revenue with the prior approval of the Government of Balochistan and in exercise of powers vested in it, vide Notification No,180-14/93/Rev., dated 6-12- 1995 directed cancellation of all titles/rights/interests acquired directly or indirectly. It is pointed out that before issuance of the Notification , dated 6-12-1995, the survey work done under section 116(1) during the period from 28-10-1986 to 7-11-1987 and survey and settlement of all unmeasured (Baroon-Az-Line) land under section 116(1) of the Act during the period from 16-12-1991 to 11-11-1992 had already lost their entry/existence on 8-11-1987 and 12-11-1992 respectively.
(c) (i) The Notification No,301-8/77-Rev.729-48, dated 18-2-1977 was applicable to those tenants of the State land who as per recordof-rights were occupancy tenants then and for unsettled areas, the persons considering themselves as occupancy tenants were allowed to file applications with the Collector concerned requesting for declaring them as occupancy tenants. This concession was available for those persons who prior to 18-2-1977 were cultivating the State land and they had documentary evidence supported by official record of the State. The mere statement that they had been in cultivating possession since forefathers is absolutely not sufficient. The benefit of this Notification could not be given to a person in 1992. The remedy available to Abdul Manan and sons was to prefer and appear against the final attestation to the Settlement Officer if they were aggrieved or on issuance of Notification No,180-. 14/93/Rev., dated 6-12-1995 they could file a writ petition before the High Court."
' The careful scrutiny of the abovementioned findings would reveal that a futile attempt has been made by misinterpreting the legal position and by misusing the authority _which was not conferred upon by various functionaries of the Revenue Department who rendered full assistance and connivance to Abdul Manan and the petitioners in completion of transaction which was not lawful. They have manoeuvred to get ownership of valuable Government land, All such titles and rights have been cancelled vide Notification of even number, dated 6-12-1995. The title of occupancy tenant cannot be obtained by mere assertion and there is no documentary proof whatsoever that they were recorded as such in record-of-rights. In fact the status of occupancy tenant could have been acquired prior to 18-2-1977 by those persons who were cultivating the State land. As mentioned hereinabove no documentary evidence could be produced by Abdul Manan or the petitioners in this regard. No such benefit could be claimed after 18-2-1977 and it is to be noted that the petitioners emerged at the scene on 11-4-1994.. The allegation of fraud has been alleged in a categoric manner and according to respondents the petitioners had got mutation on 11-4-1994 fraudulently with the connivance of revenue staff and no notice whatsoever was given to Government in this regard and benefit of Notification No,301-8/77-Rev. 729-48, dated 18-2-1977 has been given to the petitioners in an unlawful manner. We have no hesitation to hold that the State land was got entered in the name of Abdul Manan illegally and subsequently it was transferred to petitioners which was cancelled in view of Notification, dated 6-12-1995. We have also dilated upon the question as to whether review was competent or otherwise. It is well settled by now that "Order .Passed by Board of Revenue, could be reviewed where new and important material had been placed on record, which after due diligence was not within applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of making the order or decree or on account of some mistake or error on the face of the record or for other sufficient reason. Review was not competent in absence of such essentials" (1992 CLC 593 (a)). It may not be out of place to mention here that admittedly the power of review are not available under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967) but is available under Act XI of 1957. Words 'for any other sufficient reason' are capable enough to meet all sort of such eventualities as employed in section 8 of Act XI of 1957. To be read ejusdem generis with words preceding same and laying down grounds for interference in review. We are conscious of the fact that every cause would not allow to press the review in service but where sufficient reasons' are available such review can be made. In this regard reference can be made to PLD 1979 Note 82 at p.57. It' hardly needs any elaboration and as mentioned hereinabove that expression "for any other sufficient reason" appearing in section 8 is capable enough to re-empower Board of Revenue to rectify the errors committed in a revision order (1989 M LD 2876). The order passed by learned MBR-III is laconic and seems to have been passed in a hap-hazard manner and without issuance of proper notice to D.C. And Assistant District Attorney appeared on Board notice. The entire record was neither scrutinized nor examined by the learned MBR-III and thus his order was patently illegal and void, therefore, the question of any limitation does not arise. The learned MBR-III has ignored deliberately that how and to whom the status of occupancy tenant could be conferred. He also failed to appreciate the legal implications of Notification, dated 6-12-1996 and probably the same were ignored deliberately. This all cannot be without ulterior motives. In our considered opinion this can be cited as classic example where State land has been grabbed in a daring manner with the aid, assistance and active connivance of the staff/settlement officer and functionaries of Board of Revenue and thus order passed by the learned MBR-III has rightly been set aside. The land Mafia cannot be allowed to grab huge parcel of lands worth whereof runs into billions on the basis of hypertechnical suppositions and =twisting the law. The illegal and unlawful title cannot be controverted in a lawful title while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic. Of Pakistan as the Court has not been approached with clean hands_ and accordingly the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
' These are the reasons of our short order, dated 28-3-2000.