' Order, dated 20-2-2002, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, has been assailed in this appeal.
2. Land measuring 108 Kanals. Was leased out in favour of the appellant for temporary cultivation for 5 years from Rabi 1979 to Kharif 1984. He applied for the grant of proprietary rights but his application was refused vide order, dated 18-1-1984 of the learned Collector. He tiled an appeal before the learned Commissioner which was dismissed vide order. Dated 5-10-1986. However, on a miscellaneous application. Which was treated as an appeal by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, he restored the lease of the appellant till 1995 vide order, dated 30-9-1993 with the observation that the appellant would be at liberty to apply for the proprietary rights of the land in dispute if and when a new scheme is invoked. Meanwhile, the land in dispute had been allotted for temporary cultivation to Khan, respondent No,4 herein. He filed an application before the learned Member (Colonies). Board of Revenue for review of order, dated 30-9-1993 which was allowed vide order, dated 4-10-1995 on the ground that the land has been in possession of Khan, respondent No,4, and that the lease of the appellant had been cancelled in 1984. The said order was assailed in the Constitution petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that against the order, dated 30-9-1993, the review petition filed by the respondent No,4, before the learned Member (Colonies). Board of Revenue.
Punjab, was barred by time and, therefore. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to recall the order dated 30-9-1993. It is next contended that the assumption in the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue that the lease of the appellant was cancelled. Is against facts. He also contended that lease of respondent No,4 was up to Rabi 1993 and. Thereafter, a Supercar was appointed and, therefore, the finding in the order, dated 4-10-1995 that respondent No,4 was in possession of the land in dispute was also against the record.
4 . We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. When confronted as to the maintainability of this appeal, he contended that the order, dated 4-10-1995 was passed in exercise of review jurisdiction and against the said order no appeal or revision was maintainable. Application of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is sought to be avoided by assuming that order, dated 4-10-1995. Passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, was the "original order". In fact order, dated :8-1-1984 was the "original order". Out of which, the writ petition arose. In the order dated 30-9-1993, the order. Dated 18-1-1984 has been described as one refusing to grant proprietary rights to the appellant, while in the order, dated 4 10-1995, it has been noted that it was an order cancelling the lease of the appellant. The orders, dated 18-1-1984 and 5-10-1986 have not been placed on record of this appeal. However, irrespective of the fact whether the order dated 18-1-1984 directed cancellation of the lease of the appellant or it refused to grant proprietary rights to him, it was appealable. An appeal was filed before the learned Commissioner by the appellant which was dismissed on 5-10- 1986. Therefore. The order, dated 18-1-1984 has to be treated as "original order" for determining the competency of this Intra-Court Appeal. It is, therefore, barred by proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. In this view,, we are fortified by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344.
5. For what has been stated above, this appeal is dismissed in limine.