1990 PLP 1967 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 8‑‑Review jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Reinterpretation of law‑‑‑Reviewing Court, not being Appellate Court, held, has no powers to teach law to a Court of equal jurisdiction‑‑‑If a contrary view were taken, Board of Revenue under review jurisdiction would immediately turn itself into a High Court which alone has authority and jurisdiction to open questions of law i.e. questions whether law has been wrongly applied‑‑In circumstances, Court should be very chary of assuming jurisdiction which belonged to Constitutional Courts. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Rashid Gujjar for Respondent No.

2. This is an application for review of a decision of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab In the order, the learned Member accepted the revision petition of Zaflar Hussain etc. and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) Sargodha. daird 15‑1‑1989. 2, The review application, urges two sets of grounds, namely:‑‑ (i) The legal ground that the area allotted falls within prohibited zone and could in no k allotted to the; petitioners in the revision petition; and (ii) the factual ground that certain documents which tend to weaken the case of the allottee were not available too at that time, like the schedule etc. Taking the second point first, it is not tenable in review to urge that certain documents which were public and were vital to the case were not available. It was the duty of the party relying on those public documents to procure them in the long litigation with the Board of Revenue. Alternatively the help of the Court could have been obtained. The jurisdiction in review should be exercised very carefully, and if non‑availability of public documents is taken and accepted as a I ground, it would jeopardize the very purpose for which review jurisdiction has been restricted by the legislature.

3. As regards the legal point that the land falls within prohibited zone and has been wrongly conferred against the instructions of the Board of Revenue, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has taken an explicit stand on this issue. The conclusion of the learned Member, Board of Revenue is that regardless of whether or not the land falls in the prohibited zone, the allottee was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights because there was no collusion or fraud between him and functionaries of the State. The decision is that whenever there is ‑absence of fraud the allottee cannot be made to suffer because his allotment falls in an area which is not to be allotted under an enforceable Government instruction. This is an interpretation of the law relating to prohibited zone. Now the question is whether review jurisdiction is available to go into this interpretation, even if wrong. I have no hesitation in coming to the conlusion that a Reviewing Court, not being an Appellate Court, does not have the powers to teach law to a Court of equal jurisdiction. If a contrary view were taken the Board of Revenue under review jurisdiction would immediately turn itself into a High Court, which alone has the authority and jurisdiction to open questions of law i.e. questions whether law has been wrongly applied. Therefore, the present Court should be very chary of assuming jurisdiction which belongs to Constitutional Courts. In my view if a legal point has been wrongly adjudicated the power of review is not available. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I. rind myself unable to entertain this review application, which is, therefore, rejected. H.B.T./351/R Petition rejected.