2017 PLP 2447 (YLR)

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.

The petitioners are aggrieved of the act on the part of the Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab, in entertaining a Second Review Petition No.54 of 2001 in First Review Petition No.127 of 1997, and the decision thereon on 12.07.2006, whereby the Second Review Petition was allowed.

2. Leaving aside the factual aspect of the matter, the basic challenge by the petitioners is the maintainability of Second Review Petition before the Board of Revenue within the meaning of Section 8 of The West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act"), as such, the parties were directed to address on the availability of a remedy of Second Review in the scheme of law as provided in the above said Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners with the help of following judgments:-- (i). Muhammad Shafi v. The Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue and 2 others (1995 CLC 966). (ii). Raja Mohammad Iqbal and 39 others v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad through its Chairman and 2 others (2002 YLR 1059). (iii). Ghulam Muhammad v. Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore (2005 CLC 1512). (iv). Khan Muhammad and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (PLD 2006 Lahore 615). (v). Allah Wasaya v. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others (2006 YLR 2084) (vi). Ahmed Sher Khan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and others (2009 YLR 1820) (vii) Abid Ali Baig and others v. Zafar Ali and others (2012 CLC 985) have submitted that, Second Review before the Board of Revenue under the scheme as provided by virtue of Section 8 of the Act, is not available, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents placed their reliance on Dr. M. Fazil Zahir and others v. Mst. Begum Jan and others (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 53), Hamayun Ijaz and another v. Mst. Hafiza Bano and another (PLD 1985 Rev. 151) and Messrs Starco Limited v. Sindh Agricultural Research Farm, Tando Jam through Director Finance, and others (2005 CLC 235).

4. After having a thorough study of the case-law relied upon by both the sides, a consensus is seems to be that, although there was no express prohibition for Second Review in the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, yet the Act did not either expressly or impliedly exclude general principle of res-judicata and rule of finality of judgment, as such, second application for Review, after the decision of first one on its merits could not be competently instituted. Once such power had been exhausted, second review was not competent. No provision existed under the law to file second review petition before Board of Revenue, and the order whereby the first review petition was rejected had become final between the parties, no provision existed under the law to allow second review application before Board of Revenue. Order passed on first review application, rejecting the same had attained finality, as it was not challenged before any other forum. Such order passed in second review was without any legal authority, in excess of jurisdiction having no legal effect and thus was set aside. A second review on the same subject was not maintainable. It would lead to an un-attending cycle of litigation. Such power was not available to any successor to adjudge validity of order passed in first review. Whereas, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, when considered, it came out that in Dr. M. Fazil Zahir's case (supra), a venue has been provided for a second review by holding that, although second review is not permissible, but except perhaps, on some fresh ground not available to applicant when filed first application, a second review cannot be maintained, whereas, in Hamayun Ijaz's case (ibid), the power of a Member Board of Revenue to review the earlier order passed in an earlier review petition by exercising suo motu powers, was discussed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record minutes of the meeting of the Full Board of the Board of Revenue Punjab, held on 10.08.2009, whereby it was unanimously decided that, until such time, necessary amendments in the law are introduced, the petitions for Second Review can be entertained in Board of Revenue, but such jurisdiction must be exercised in very exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.

6. Section 7(1) of the Act provides that, any order made or a decree passed by a Member either on appeal or in revision shall, subject to any order made or decree passed under the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section and of section 8, be final, whereas, section 8(1) of the said Act provides that, any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order made by the Board, if desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply to the Board for a review of judgment, whereas, Section 8(2) of the Act provides that, every application for a review of a decree or order under sub-section 8(1) shall be made within ninety days from the date of that decree or order.

7. It is significant to note that, in view of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act, the word "order" has been used in singular sense, which attained finality, subject to an order passed under section 8 of the Act. Further, it is also noteworthy that in the provision of review i.e. section 8 of the Act, everywhere before word "review, the word "a" has been used by the Legislature. In view of the definition of "a" as has been given in Concise Oxford English Dictionary, means "one single", whereas, according to Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, word "a" is used chiefly with a singular noun. Therefore, no second opinion is possible that, only a single review is available under section 8(1) of the Act with the Board of Revenue.

8. As far the decision arrived at by the Full Board of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 10.08.2009, as noted herein-above, the same has no legal sanction as even the Full Board is not competent to decide against the statutory provision of law and thus bestowing a jurisdiction, which is not available under the statutory law by means of some administrative decisions, is not sustainable.

9. It is, therefore, held as under:-- (a) that no Second Review is available and permissible under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act; (b) that it is only a remedy of one review, which is permissible under the law; (c) that it is only on an application of an aggrieved person that the Board of Revenue can entertain and decide a review petition and, thus, the Member in Board of Revenue is not competent to enjoy the powers to exercise a suo motu review jurisdiction; (d) that the decision arrived at on 10.08.2009 in the meeting of the Full Board of the Board of Revenue, Punjab providing a remedy of second review in exceptional circumstances, has no legal sanction and is, therefore, set-aside. It is directed that, all the petitions seeking second or subsequent review on already decided matters in first review shall be deemed to have become redundant and the Board of Revenue, Punjab, in compliance of this order, will declare all such pending petitions for second or subsequent review as redundant and unauthorized forthwith.

10. In view of above, present petition succeeds, and the impugned order dated 12.07.2006, passed by the Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue, Punjab in Second Review Petition No.54 of 2001 is se-aside. Writ petition stands allowed. ZC/M-172/L Petition allowed.