CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the land in question was allotted to respondents Nos. 5 to 10 under the Settlement laws. Respondents Nos. 5 to 10 sold the land in-question to respondent No. 4. The Revenue Officer sanctioned Mutation No. 1083 on 8.4.1996 and Mutation No. 1241 on 8.6.1997 in favour of respondent No. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a review petition before the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Gujranwala on 19.8.1998, which was rejected vide order dated 14.9.1999. The petitioner being aggrieved field revision petition before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 24.1.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved, filed revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 16.10.2004.
Hence, the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents Nos. 5 to 10 have no lawful authority to sell the land in-question to respondent No. 4 as the land in question is not transferred by the Settlement department to them, therefore, all the Tribunals below erred in law to nonsuit the petitioner, in support of his contention, he relied upon "Ahasnullah Khan vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan" (PLD 1966 Lahore 723). He further submits that respondents Nos. 5 to 10 have adopted the legal device to deprive the petitioner to file pre-emption suit, in case land in- question is sold to respondent No. 4 after securing proprietary rights from the Settlement department by respondents Nos. 5 to 10, but this aspect was not considered by the Tribunals below, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that Mutations were sanctioned by the Revenue Officer, therefore, Member Board of Revenue erred in law not to entertain the same on the ground that, as the matter pertains to the Settlement laws, therefore, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, hence, the impugned order of Member of Revenue is without lawful authority.
3. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The Deputy Commissioner/District in the impugned order, has observed that possession of the land in question was handed over to respondent No. 4, therefore, he is bona fide purchaser. He also observed that there is no interest or locus standi of the present petitioner to file review petition before the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector to the extent of locus standi, the matter was upheld upto the Member Board of Revenue, it is admitted fact that all the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and the petitioner has no locus standi to file review petition, it is settled principle of law that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Khuda Bakhsh vs. Muhammad Sharif and others" (1974 S.C.M.R. 279); "Muhammad Sharif, etc. Vs. Muhammad Afzai, etc." (PLD 1981 S.C. 246); "Abdul Rehman Bajwa vs. Sultan Ahmad, etc." (PLD 1981 S.C. 522).
It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunals below while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Board of! & S.E. Lahore vs. M. Musaddaq Naseem" (PLD 1973 Lahore 600)"
"Syed Asmat Ali Shah vs. Chief Settlement, etc." (PLD 1964 S.C. 260).
6. The Member Board of Revenue has rightly observed that M.B.R, has no jurisdiction to assume the jurisdiction qua orders, which were passed by the Settlement Authority, it is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character; he who seeks equity must come to the Court with clean hands and must be vigilant for his right. The Member Board of Revenue has passed the impugned order on 16.10.2004; whereas the petitioner has filed his Constitutional petition against the said order before this Court on 25.5.2005, therefore, the Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner did not approach this Court well in the, therefore, Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner did not approach this Court well in time, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per principle laid down by the Full Bench of Honourable Supreme Court in "Federation of Pakistan and others vs. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan" (PLD 1989 S.C. 166) and Full Bench of this Court in "Khawaja Muhammad Sharif vs. Federation of Pakistan and 18 others" (PLD 1988 Lahore 725). Even otherwise, Constitutional petition is also liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of laches, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Khalil Khan vs. Haji Nazir and 4 others" (PLD 1997 S.C. 304). However, the petitioner is will within his right to avail proper remedy in terms of order of-the M.B.R, dated 16.10.2004.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.