Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 6 of 1962‑63, decided on 16th January 1963, District Montgomery.

S. 8 read with S. 6(2)‑Order passed by Member under S. 13(4), West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑Review of such Order by Board of Revenue competent under S. 8 read with S.6(2).

S. 8-- Review‑Not competent where no new and important matter or evidence is involved in case.

Mahmoodul Haq for Petitioner.

Manzoor Hussain for Respondents.

This is a review filed against my own order dated the 10th of October 1962, whereby the revision filed by the respondents was accepted.

The facts of the case are already given in the order mentioned above and need not be repeated. At the moment, the point for consideration is whether a review lies or not.

I have heard the counsel for the parties. My orders on the revisional side were passed under section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and, as such, it was an order passed by the Board. The provisions of the Board of Revenue Act will, therefore, be applicable to such orders. Under section 6(2) of the Board of Revenue Act, an order passed by a Member will be deemed to be an order passed by the Board. The review will, therefore, be competent under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, but the powers of review by a Member of the Board of Revenue will be limited in scope as laid down under section 8 of the Board of Revenues Act.

It is now to be seen whether the conditions prescribed in the Board of Revenue Act are fulfilled in this case. Under section 8 of the Act, a review can be entertained only when any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of or could not be produced by the person concerned at the time when the original order was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has installed a tube-well and this fact was not mentioned at the time the revision was heard. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that, in the review petition itself, it is stated that the petitioner intends to install a tubewell for proper reclamation. It is, therefore, clear that no tubewell exists at the moment. There is, therefore, no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the classification of soil but this was considered when the revisional orders were passed and is, therefore, neither a new matter nor a new evidence.

In these circumstances, the case cannot be reopened as no review is competent under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act. The present review is, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. Review dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.