' 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 Comrnissioner/District Collector, Gujranwala on 19-8-1998, which was rejected vide order, dated 14-9-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed 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 non-suit the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon Ahsan Ullah v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan PLD 1966 Lah.
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, Board 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 Collector 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 a 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 Honourable Supreme Courts in the following judgments:- ' Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1974 SCM R 279; Muhammad Sharif and others v.
Muhammad Afzal and others PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan Ahmad 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 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 I. &S.E. Lahore v. M. Musaddaq Naseem PLD 1973 Lah. 600 and Syed Azmat Ali Shah v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1964 SC 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 this 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 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 v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan PLD 1989 SC 166 and Full Bench of this Court in Khawaja Muhammad Sharif v.
Federation of Pakistan and 18 others PLD 1988 Lah.
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 Khiali Khan v.
Haji Nazir and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 304. However, the petitioner is well within his right to avail proper remedy in terms of order of 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. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.