This single judgment shall decide the present Constitutional petition (W.P. No, 4200 of 2002) and the connected petition (W.P. No, 8660 of 2001) as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions and they are between the same parties.
2. The petitioner, through the filing of these Constitutional petitions, has challenged orders dated 18.5.2001 and 21.8.2000, passed of the learned Members Board of Revenue.
3. Briefly stated the facts culminating to the filing of these two petitions are that two pieces of land, measuring 60 kanals and 40 kanals situated in Chak No, 721/GB Tehsil Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh, were allotted to one Abdul Ranim as "Lambardari grant", vide order dated 15.1.1968 After his death, his son and successor-in-interest namely Abdul Rashid disposed of the said land and thus he was dismissed from the post of Lambardar. Thereafter, Abdul Ghani the grand father of the present petitioner, was appointed as the Lambardar and as the aforesaid two pieces of land, already stood leased out under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme, therefore, Abdul Ghani moved an application for the allotment of the said land as "Lambardari grant" to him. Pursuant to the above, 60-Kanals of land was allotted to him, however, the remaining 40-Kanals could not be allotted, as the lessee, under the Temporary Cultivation Scheme, had already obtained proprietary rights. Subsequently, after the death of Abdul Ghani, his son namely Abdul Latif was appointed as Lambardar and in lieu of 40- Kanals of land, he applied for disputed 40-Kanals as alternate allotment, which land was never reserved for Lambardari grant or pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme and was resumed from the allottess of "Grow More Food Scheme". Upon receiving such an application from Abdul Latif, the District Collector Toba Tek Singh, after finding that the land has been resumed from the allottees of Grow More Food Scheme, reported the matter to the Board of Revenue with his recommendations that land may be allotted to Abdul Latif, if permissible under the rules so that the deficiency of Lambardari grant may be made up, vide order dated 30.11.93. The Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue referred the matter to the Commissioner, Faisalabad, to examine and decide the case which was finally entrusted to the Additional Commissioner for disposal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, Muhammad Hussain, Respondent No, 2, filed an application for his impleadment as party in the proceedings on the ground that in auction, held for the five years cultivation lease of the disputed land, he was declared as highest bidder and has also deposited the dues for the year 1996/97, however, the learned Additional Commissioner, vide order dated 26.6.1997, dismissed his application on the ground that his bid was not confirmed and the possession was not delivered to him. As regards the case of Abdul Latif, the learned Additional Commission, vide order dated 27.6.1997, directed that the land measuring 40-Kanals may be allotted to Abdul Latif to make up the deficiency of Lambardari grant, under the pedigree Livestock Scheme. Seemingly aggrieved from orders dated 26.6.1997 and 27.6.1997, Muhammad Hussain filed two separate appeals (Bearing No, R.O.A. 105 of 97 and R.O.A. No, 106 of 1997) and the learned Member Board of Revenue allowed both the appeals, set aside orders dated 26.6.97 and 27.6.97, the allotment made in favour of Abdul Latif was cancelled and the matter was referred to District Collector with the directions to decide the matter, about confirmation or otherwise of the auction proceedings of the land, vide order dated 21.8.2000. The petitioner, being son of Abdul Latif, has challenged order dated 21.8.2000 through filing the Writ Petition No, 8660 of 2001. In the post remand proceedings, the learned District Collector, after finding that Muhammad Hussain was the highest bidder at the time of auction, proceeded to confirm the auction proceedings dated 12.5.1996, vide order dated 9.1.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal before the. learned Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad, which was dismissed, vide order dated 8.2.2001. The said order was challenged by the petitioner, through tiling the revision petition (ROR No, 24/2001), before the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, but without any success as the same was also dismissed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, vide order dated 16.5.2001, which has been challenged through filing the Writ Petition No, 4200 of 2002.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, which raising some disputed questions of fact, has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Members Board of Revenue, challenged in both the petitions, are not sustainable in law and the said public functionaries committed legal errors in arriving at the said conclusions. Conversely, the learned counsel, for the Respondent No, 2 has submitted that the Writ Petition (W.P. No, 8660/2001) challenging order dated 21.8.2000 was filed on 21.5.2001, therefore, the same is hit by the principle Of laches. He has further submitted that certain material facts have been suppressed in the petitions; that the petitioner has not come to this Court which clean hands and that he is not in possession of the disputed land.
5. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel, I have examined the available record, perused both the orders, passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, and is of the view that all the forums, available under the relevant law, specially the Member Board of Revenue, passing the impugned orders, properly embarked upon every aspect of the case, adverted to the contentions raised by the parties and reached to the proper and legal conclusions, which are not open to exception. The findings rendered by the learned Member Board of Revenue are not only in accordance with the period of the case but the same are also in consonance with the law on the subject. The learned counsel for the petitioner, except raising some controversial questions could not point out any grave legal infirmity, so as to un-settle the well reasoned orders rendered by both the learned Members Board of Revenue.
6. Upon the examination of the impugned orders, I do not find that ' the same are either arbitrary or without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction either by the Members Board of Revenue or other forums. Even during the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional defect/error in the impugned orders. There is no cavil with the proposition that the Courts/forums established under the relevant law, had the jurisdiction to decide the matter and they have decided the causes in accordance with law, that too after properly taking into consideration all the aspect of the case, record of the case and law on the subject. It may be noted that in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction this Court has only to see whether a Tribunal or Court has acted with jurisdiction or violated the statute or law laid down by the superior Courts.
This Court, in such like cases, is not called upon to re-appraise the evidence and the writ petitions are not to be decided in the manner appeals are to be heard or/and decided. In this regard, Muhammad Sharif and another vs. Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. (PLD 1981 SC 246) and Abdul Rehman Bajwa vs. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522) can be referred.
7. Record of the case manifests that the highest public functionary, appointed in the revenue hierarchy, has decided the matter, after taking into consideration the record of the case, hearing the parties and law on the subject. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a case reported as Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Forest Department, Punjab, Lahore through Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Ghulam Nabi and 3 others (PLD 2001 SC 415), after taking into consideration numerous case-law on the subject, has held that when the forums available in the hierarchy under the relevant law had decided all the controversial questions on the basis of record and in accordance with law, then the High Court could not interfere in the matter, that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be converted into that of appellate jurisdiction and the disputed questions of fact could not be entered or allowed to be re-agitated under Constitutional jurisdiction. It has further been held in the said judgment that High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction cannot re-appraise ' the evidence and come to its own independent findings, where the findings of fact have been recorded by authority below after giving good reasons.
8. Applying the aforesaid law declared by the Apex Court of the Country, I do not find that either of the forums have flouted the provisions of law or failed to follow the law relating thereto as laid down by the superior Courts or acted without jurisdiction. In view whereof, I am not inclined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, which is otherwise discretionary and equitable.
Additionally, the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that the first writ petition is hit by the principle of laches.
9. For the foregoing reasons, writ petitions are not competent and devoid of merits, thus, both the impugned orders passed by the learned Members Board of Revenue do not call for any interference by this Court, hence both the petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.