' The petitioner has challenged the vires of the orders of the Member. Board of Revenue dated 27-7- 2004 and 21-8-2004 through this Constitutional petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the land in-question is situated in the village where the petitioner is residing whereas respondent No,1 is not resident of the village in-question.
The land in-question was put to open auction in 1962. Respondent No,1 participated in the auction proceedings and his bid was highest amounting to Rs,2,76,547. His bid was accepted and he had paid Rs,87,633 and took over possession of the land in-question. The remaining amount was paid by respondent No,1 in three instalments but he failed to pay the same Within the prescribed period.
The land was resumed and finally the Member, Board of Revenue decided the case in favour of respondent No,1 vide order, dated 5-6-2000. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,20687 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment, dated 15-10-2002 and remanded the case to the Member, Board of Revenue who again decided the matter in favour of respondent No,1 vide order, dated 27-7-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed review petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 21-8-2004. The Member, Board of Revenue decided the case in violation of the parameters prescribed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation; therefore, the impugned orders are without lawful authority. He further submits that the impugned orders do not contain any reason, therefore, same are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied upon Messrs Airport Support Service v. The Airport Manager, Karachi 1998 SCM R 2268. He further submits that land in-question is valuing more than Rs,70,00,000 whereas respondent No,1 purchased the same in auction proceedings for consideration of Rs,2,76,547. Respondent No,1 did not improve the status of the land in-question but this fact was not considered in its true perspective by the Member, Board of Revenue. He further submits that many opportunities were granted to respondent No,1 to discharge his liabilities in terms of various orders by the various authorities but he could not discharge his liabilities in terms of orders passed by the various authorities; therefore, impugned orders are result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce operative part of order dated 27-7-2004 to resolve the controversy between the parties- "I have considered the arguments of two sides and have minutely gone through the record produced as well as the report obtained from District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad. Non-payment is a rectifiable breach. Since the petitioner has developed the barren land with expenditure of huge amount and great labour, one further chance is given to him with the direction that all the arrears along with penalty of Rs,10,000 should be cleared by him within thirty days. In case of failure to deposit the whole arrears within the stipulated period the impugned land will automatically be resumed in favour of the State and possession should immediately be taken over from the petitioner for further disposal of the same in accordance with Government policy. With these observations the revision petition is accepted. A copy of this order may be sent to the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad for further necessary action. So far as the offer of the respondent is concerned he cannot claim the land belonging to Government by offering a heavy amount, he has to seek its procurement by following proper procedure and rules. The order in this case was reserved on 24-7-2004 and is being announced today. The parties may be informed through their respective counsel."
' The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the Member, Board of Revenue has passed the order after application of mind; therefore, plea of the learned counsel of the petitioner that case has been decided by the Member, Board of Revenue in violation of the parameters prescribed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, has no force. The Member, Board of Revenue has given finding of fact against the petitioner; therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunal below 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 Lah. 600 and Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others PLD 1964 SC 260.
It is also admitted fact that Review petition was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 21-8-2004 whereas the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition on 15-12-2004, this fact brings the case in the area that the petitioner has not approached this Court immediately after passing the order by the Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, it is a good ground not to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as the Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Haji Saif Ullah's case PLD 1989 SC 166 and Kh. Muhammad Sharif's case PLD 1988 Lah.
725.
As the substantial justice has been done by the Member, Board of Revenue through the impugned orders; therefore, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236. As mentioned above, the petitioner has approached this Court after considerable delay, therefore, Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of lathes as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Khaili Khan v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 304.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.