BASHIR AHMAD Versus MST. INAYAT BIBI
ORDER
This is a petition for review of the order dated 16‑10‑1970 passed by me in R.O R. No 217/1968‑69 Mst. Inayat Bibi v. Muhammad Bashir whereby the revision petition of the respondent regarding mutation in record of rights in respect of B. No. 66/1 to 16 (16 acres) Deh. No. 269, taluka Jamesabad, District Tharparkar was upheld by me.
2. The facts of the case are that father of the respondent held the disputed land on restricted tenure. In 1963, he gifted it to his grand‑son, the present petitioner. The permission for the gift was given by the Collector on 11‑11‑1965. The Mukhtiarkar accordingly mutated the gift in favour of the petitioner on 18‑11‑66. The respondent filed a revision petition, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, vide his order dated 3‑4‑1969 mainly on the ground that after introduction of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, full proprietary rights had been conferred upon the present right holders and the permission of the Collector was of a formal nature and there was no justification to refuse the permission. The respondent preferred a revision petition to the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by me vide my order dated 16‑10‑1970.
3. I heard the counsels for the parties at length on 24‑3‑1971 and 20‑5‑1971. They had urged the following points:‑
(a) Counsel for the Petitioner.
(i) The petitioner was minor and as such the question of transfer of possession to him by the donor was not relevant in the case vide para. 155 of Muhammadan Law.
(ii) Mst. Inayat Bibi had herself given statement before the Mukhtiarkar stating that she had no objection if the gift of disputed land had been made to Bashir Ahmed by her father. The statement was a piece of record and the law of estoppel would come into effect and Mst. Inayat Bibi could not retract from the statement. This was a complicated question of law and can be decided by the civil Court.
(b) Counsel for the Respondent.
(i) No evidence, which could be urged with exercise of due diligence at earlier stages, could be raised at the stage of review as held in the following rulings:‑
(1) P L D 1968 (Rev.) 33
(2) P L D 1969 (Rev.) 34
(3) P L D 1964 (Rev.) 13
(4) P L D 1964 (Rev.) 44
(5) P L D 1961 (Rev.) 2 06
(6) P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201
The petitioner had knowledge that the statement existed in the record but he did not exercise due diligence to raise the point at earlier stages and he could not, therefore, be allowed to raise the point in review.
(ii) The lady was stated to have affixed her thumb impression on the statement on 2‑10‑1963, but the statement had been attested by the Mukhtiarkar on 21‑10‑1963 i.e. after lapse of 19 days. The Mukhtiarkar had only attested the statement and had not said that it had been recorded in his presence. The Mukhtiarkar was the authority competent to record the state ment. Statement was not, therefore, valid as it had not been recorded in presence of the Mukhtiarkar.
(iii) Possession of the land was with respondent according to para. 149 of Muhammadan Law. Transfer of possession was one of the essentials of the gift.
4. I have considered the case. According to section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 the review petition is admissible only on the grounds of discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not' be produced by him at the time when the order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court vide P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201 has further expounded the issue as follows:‑
"The power to review could only be exercised for the specific purpose of "correcting any error or supplying any omission" which appears on the surface of the record and could be detected without a further elaborate inquiry or investigation. This might apply to accidental or arithmetical mistakes due to human forgetfulness not involving a mental process of reasoning or the appreciation of any law or the facts already proved or admitted. Any other view would eliminate the real distinction between the exercise of powers on appeal where the entire subject‑matter is open to re‑assessment and re‑decision by the higher authority, and on review, where the matter has already been finally decided and cannot be re‑opened but for the very narrow object of correcting some errors which had occurred in spite of intention to the contrary.
Further, the removal of any error will not confer power of "review" it must be of a character that without correcting it the rights to which the parties may be entitled, cannot be adjusted."
The case of the petitioner was heard and considered at length in revision. There is none of the above compelling circumstances in the present case justifying review of the previous order and the review petition is consequently dismissed.