1989 PLP 2760 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, CJ-- This petition is directed against the order dated 16 1-1980, passed by respondent 1 in exercise of the review power contained in section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that Survey Block Nos. 130 and 131 measuring in all 32 acres (hereinafter referred to as the land) situated in Deh Kadhan, taluka and district Badin, were granted to Haji Natho, Jumo and Alloo by the Revenue Officer. It appears that against the above grant, the petitioners filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Additional Commissioner by the order dated 22-1-1973, whereby, it was ordered that the land was to be disposed of afresh. It is the case of petitioners that on 27-4-1973, the petitioners were given the land against which Haji Natho, Jumo and Alloo filed a revision, which was dismissed on 17-10-1975. However, it appears that respondents 2 and 3 approached the Additional Commissioner some time in 1975 with the grievance that the land should have been granted to them. The Additional Commissioner, by his order dated 1-12-1975 disposed of the respondents 2 and 3's above appeal by observing that the appeal was premature as the land would be put in scheme under the schedule. Against the above order, the petitioners filed a revision, which was allowed by an order dated 13-12-1977 and the grant in favour of petitioners was confirmed. Against the above order, respondents 2 and 3 filed the above review which was allowed by order dated 16- 1-1980. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition. In support of the above petition, Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that no new important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of respondents 2 and 3 was discovered after the passing of the revisional order and, therefore, the review was misconceived that respondent I could not have set aside the above order passed in revision. However, we have pointed out to him that by Ordinance No.18 of 1964 the words "or for any other sufficient reason" were added in section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 and thereby enlarging the scope of review. In the impugned order, respondent 1 has directed that the land is to be disposed of afresh after due publicity strictly in accordance with the provisions of the land grant policy, which was also in fact original order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 1-12-1975. The order seems to be just and proper and does not call for any interference. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned Advocate-General appearing for the official respondents, has pointed out that there was error apparent on the face of the revisional order dated 13-12-1977, wherein it was observed that the land was granted to the present petitioners in open Katchehri which was not correct factual position. The petition has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-575/K Petition dismissed.