KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.---This review petition is directed against the judgment of this Court passed on 2-5-2002, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated, are that the dispute between the parties is in respect of ' Shamilat Deh' land measuring 5 Kanals, 14 Marlas situate in village Kalyal Bainsi, Tehsil and District Mirpur.
The petitioner claimed that a portion of the said land has been forcibly occupied by contesting respondent, therefore, he sought his ejectment from Tehsidar Mirpur who allowed his application and passed an order of ejectment against the contesting respondent. On appeal the Collector, District Mirpur remanded the case to Tehsildar Mirpur for fresh order after providing re-hearing to the parties. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Revenue Commissioner who vide his order, dated 14-1-1999 held that as the parties are, co-shareres in the ' Shamilat Deh' land, therefore, the Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to pass an order of , ejectment against any co-sharer. He, therefore, quashed the orders passed by the subordinate Revenue Officers. The petitioner was not satisfied by the order of the Revenue Commissioner. He, therefore, filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and also craved for the order of status quo. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing and the order of status quo was allowed to him. The matter was still sub judice before the Member, Board of Revenue when an application was moved by the ' present petitioner seeking appropriate order, as according to him, the contesting respondent had violated the order of status quo issued by the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, 'Board of Revenue conducted the inquiry and, thereafter, directed the S.S.P., Mirpur and S.H.O., Islamgarh, Mirpur, to proceed against the said respondent under law for the violation of stay order. The contesting respondent, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court in which he challenged the jurisdiction of the Member, Board of Revenue and proceedings pending before him. After taking necessary proceedings the learned Judge in the High Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the Revenue authorities have got no jurisdiction competence to eject the constesting respondent who is also a co-sharer in the Shamilat Deh land. The. High Court also quashed the order of Member, Board of Revenue, whereby the S.S.P., Mirpur and S.H.O., Islamgarh, were directed to proceed against the contesting respondent, for the violation of stay order. The judgment of the High Court was challenged before us in appeal. The said appeal was finally dismissed by this Court vide judgment under review, dated 2-5-2002. Hence this review petition.
3. Mr. Sultan Mehmood, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that as the Member, Board of Revenue had withdrawn his order, dated 24-9-1999, therefore, the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent in the High Court had become infructuous but this point has not been attended to in the judgment under review. His other objection is that the Tehsildar, Collector and the Commissioner, were the necessary parties but they were not impleaded as answering respondents by the contesting respondent in his writ petition, therefore, the judgment of the High Court was not maintainable which was erroneously maintained by this Court vide judgment under review. According to him the Member, Board of Revenue had .The jurisdictional competence to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The High Court without any final order passed by the Member Board of Revenue was not justified in law to indulge in the matter of his jurisdiction in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. He further. Argued that contesting respondent is not a Member of the proprietary body, only the petitioner is a Member of the proprietary body, therefore, this Court while passing the judgment under review has wrongly decided the dispute between the parties by assuming the contesting respondent as Member of the proprietary body. The above-referred points, in the wisdom of the learned counsel, are apparent errors in law, therefore, he craved that the review petition filed by his client be admitted for regular hearing.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the relevant record. Whether Member, Board of Revenue had withdrawn his order, dated 24-9-1999 or not is a question of fact which was not pressed by the petitioner before the High Court nor was raised before us at the time of hearing of his appeal, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be raised in review jurisdiction. Even otherwise as jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities including the Board of Revenue was challanged by the respondent before the High Court, therefore, this point had no bearing on the fate of his writ petition. So far as the other points are concerned, those are also without any substance. The petitioner himself has placed on record the judgment of this Court which in the earlier round of litigation was passed by this Court on 19-1-1997. In this judgment the parties were held proprietors in village Kalyal Bainsi. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced below:--- "The precise facts, of the case are that both the parties are proprietors in village Kalyal-Bainsi. The dispute relates to land measuring 5 Kanals and 14 Marlas entered in Survey No.4196 which is admittedly Shamilat land of the said village."
5. The history of the protracted litigation between the contesting parties was discussed in detail by us in para. 12 of the judgment under review from pages 9 to 11 and in the light of the previous litigation the parties were acknowledged as proprietor in village Kalyal Bainsi. This point was pressed on behalf of the contesting respondent not only in the light of the previous findings recorded by this Court but also in the light of the pleaded facts whereby the claim of contesting respondent in sub-para. (c) of para. 6 of his writ petition that he was a co--sharer and in possession of the ' Shamilat Deh' land before the year 1985 was not specifically denied by the present petitioner in his written statement. As the Civil Procedure Code was applicable in the writ jurisdiction, therefore, the evasive denial in written statement by the petitioner was construed an admission on his part and it was held that on the basis of his pleadings the petitioner was not justified in law to claim before this Court that contesting respondent was not member of the proprietary body, as such, had no interest or share in the ' Shamilat Deh' land, therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner that the contesting respondent be declared a trespasser was not acknowledged. After the detailed discussion this point raised on behalf of the petitioner was repelled. In the same way the objection of the petitioner that Tehsildar, Collector and the Revenue Commissioner were necessary parties was discussed and repelled by us in the judgment under review. The relevant observations in this regard stood incorporated at pages 19 and 20 of the said judgment which without any comment are reproduced below:-- ............................. The last argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is also without any force that as Tehsildar, Collector and Revenue Commissioner, were not impleaded as answering respondents in the writ petition by the contesting respondent, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground. He in support of this contention relied upon the authority of this Court which has got nothing common with the facts of this case, therefore, on account of its distinguishable features need not be discussed in this judgment. In this case no doubt initial order of ejectment of the contesting respondent was recorded by the Tehsildar Mirpur and on appeal the case was remanded to him by the Collector Mirpur justifying the competence of the Tehsildar Mirpur to proceed with the ejectment application but these orders were set aside by the Commissioner Revenue suo motu while deciding the revision petition filed by the contesting respondent on the ground that Revenue Officers below him had no jurisdictional competence to pass such orders, therefore, the orders passed by Tehsildar Mirpur and Collector, District Mirpur, were not in existence. The only order which was in the field was passed by Member, Board of Revenue who had also initiated the proceedings for the violation of status quo against the contesting respondent. The said Member had directed S.S.P., Mirpur and S.H.O., Islamgarh Tehsil Mirpur, to proceed against the contesting respondent. In the light of these facts, the contesting respondent was aggrieved only by the order passed by Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, there was no need to implead subordinate Revenue Officers as answering respondents."