P L D 1961 W (PLP)

West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8 Review‑‑No apparent mistake or error‑No interference. Muhammad Shafi for Petitioners. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Respondents. The present application purports to be a petition of review under section 15 of the Land Revenue Act against an order passed by my learned predecessor in Revision No. 271 of 1958‑

59. The facts of the case have been given in some detail in the order against which the present review is sought and also by me in an earlier order in revision No. 1 of 1954‑55, dated 25‑1‑1956. To recapitulate briefly Anwar Ali, respondent, had applied for partition of the land in dispute in 1947. A question of title was raised regarding Anwar Ali's share on the ground of a registered partition deed dated 2‑5‑1942. In the revision proceedings of 1954‑55 referred to above the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, was directed to determine this question by constituting himself into a Civil Court or decline to grant the application until this question had been determined by a competent authority. Simultaneously civil litigation had been proceeding amongst the parties about the share of Akbar Ali in the family property. Anwar Ali was also a party to these civil proceedings but the determination of his share was not a point in ‑issue. Anwar Ali subsequently con tended in the partition proceedings that his title bad been established by the Civil Courts and had been confirmed by the High Court, and the partition' proceedings should, therefore, be continued. The relevant judgments were produced before my learned brother Mr. M. Z. Khan who came to the conclusion that these judgments did not determine Anwar Ali's share and merely dealt with the share of Akbar Ali who was held to be entitled to half of the property. He, therefore, set aside the proceedings for partition and held that these should proceed further only after Anwar Ali gets his share in the properly determined. It is against this order that the present petition has been preferred. Two preliminary objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents firstly that an application of review does not lie before the Board of Revenue under section 15 of the Land Revenue Act, and it is section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act which governs such cases. Even if the present application is held to be under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act it should be dismissed because it does not disclose any grounds which could attract the provisions of that section. This section circumscribes the powers of the Board to grant a review and these briefly extend only to those cases in which a new matter or evidence discovered or a mistake or an error is apparent on the face of record. The former provision is apparently not applicable and as regards the latter it will be seen that there was no apparent mistake or error as my learned brother was fully aware of the circumstances of the case and the civil litigation which had been proceeding between the parties and the decisions arrived at in the High Court. I do not, therefore, find any reasons to grant this application which stands dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.