' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the Consolidation Officer, Mianwali confirmed' the consolidation scheme Mauza Wan Bhachran Shumali; on the basis of the Jamabandi for the year 1943-44 vide order dated 30-6-1980. The land owners of the village being aggrieved submitted applications before the Member Board of Revenue, who accepted the applications of the land owners and set aside the order dated 30-6-1980. Vide order dated 4-10- 1983 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer. Subsequently, the Consolidation Officer confirmed the scheme vide order dated 30-6-1988. The legal heirs of Dost Muhammad present petitioner filed appeal before the Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Sargodha Division Sargodah, who cancelled the scheme vide order dated 16-3-1989. The land owners being aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Consolidation, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who set aside the scheme as a whole and remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation Mianwali, with a direction to examine the case himself and then pass an appropriate order vide order dated 16-3-1989. The Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation Mianwali confirmed the scheme under section 10(4) Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960 vide order dated 18-9-1994. The legal heirs of Dost Muhammad present petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Sargodha Division, who dismissed the same thereafter the petitioner filed revision petition before Member Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same vide order dated 4-5-2002.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner Consolidation, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, are not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. During the process of consolidation, land of the petitioner was reduced 6-Kanals 17-Marlas although the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue is mentioned that petitioners are demanding 3-Kanals more land mentioned in the grounds of revision petition but he has not accepted the claim of the petitioner. The Member Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order without application of mind and without adverting to the grounds taken by the petitioners in the revision petition. He further submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts as the Member Board of Revenue have no lawful authority to disturb the land, which was, in possession of their predecessor in interest in terms of the provisions of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960 before initiation of the consolidation proceedings. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the followings judgments:-- ' Raja Shah and 38 others v. Nazar Hussain Shah PLD 1976 Lahore 658; ' Noor Khan v. Lal Khan and two others PLD 1983 Revenue 11.
' He further submits that four brothers have partitioned their land through family settlement and this fact was also borne out from the impugned order of the Member Board of Revenue in the contents of para.6. He further submits that the land of the two brother's predecessor in interest of the land was disturbed by the Consolidation Authorities whereas the land of their two other brothers was not disturbed by the Consolidation Authorities. He further submits that first scheme was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 30-6-1980. Second scheme was confirmed on 30- 6-1988. The previous land of the petitioner remained with the petitioner. The third scheme was confirmed on 18-9-1994 wherein the land previously in possession of the petitioner was disturbed by the consolidation authorities, which is not in consonance with the spirit of the consolidation law.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioner has concealed the material facts in the contents of the writ petition and all the documents were not attached by the petitioner with the Constitutional petition. The scheme was confirmed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation vide order dated 18-9-1994 under section 10(4) of the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Consolidation, Sargodha Division Sargodha, which is at page.11. He further submits that the petitioner has not taken a ground qua reduction of land in the memorandum of revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue, therefore, impugned order of the. Member Board of Revenue is in accordance with. Law. He further submits that petitioner has alleged in para.3 that 6- Kanals, 17 Marlas land was given to the petitioner from their entitlement but the petitioner did not attach a single document to show their entitlement. He further submits that in fact the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunals below that some land of the petitioner was adjusted and had been given to the other land owners. He further submits that the petitioner has not brought on record any proof on the file qua the reduction of the land by the Tribunals below of the petitioner.
He further urges that Constitutional petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-- Asad Riaz v. Member Board of ' Revenue 1997 SCMR 1611; ' Brig. Sadaat Ali Shah v. Muhammad Hanif PLD 1993 Lahore 694; ' Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others 1989 SCMR 1096; ' Mst. Bakhtan and others v. Member Board of Revenue 2004 SCMR 337.
' He further urges that possession of the major portion of the previous land owned by the petitioner were given to the petitioner and minor adjustments were made by the Consolidation Authorities as is evident from para.6 of the impugned order.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Mst. Murad Begum's case" PLD 1974 SC 322 and Muhammad Hanif v.
Refu and others 1989 SCMR 1705. The petitioner did not take a single ground qua reduction of their entitlement with regard to their land owned by them previously before initiation of proceedings for consolidation of the land in the village in question. All the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1974 SCMR 279; ' Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others PLD 1981 SC 246; ' Abdur Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and others PLD 1981 SC 522.
'It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute Its own findings in place of the findings of the tribunals below while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution as per law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and another v. M.
Massadaq Naseem Sindhoo PLD 1973 Lahore 600 ' Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others PLD 1964 SC 260.
' `It is pertinent to mention here that Member Board of Revenue after perusing the record has given findings against the petitioner by observing that the petitioner a well as respondents were given land according to their previous possession. The relevant observation of the impugned order is as follows:-- "I have seen the sketch map, clarification furnished by respondent is correct. When irregularly shaped kishtwar numbers are adjusted after Killa Bandi, some corners are bound to be. Shed.
Petitioners are demanding. D three more Kanals in Khasra numbers mentioned by them.
Consolidation has been done by and large according to previous possession. Minor adjustment was bound to happen after re-measurement of kishtwar area. I agree with Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division, that no injustice was done.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.