' The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner being aggrieved of the allotment of the land measuring 66 Kanals and 9 Marlas, situated in Chak No,213/GB, Tehsil. Samundari, District Faisalabad, in favour of Mst. Bashir, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,4, vide order dated 7-10-1958, on whom the proprietary rights were conferred, made an application .To respondent No,3, for cancellation of the land of respondent No,4, allegedly allotted on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The said application was dismissed by respondent No,3, vide order, dated 20-10-2003. The petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No,2, who dismissed the same and lastly the petitioner approached Member, Board of Rrevenue/respondent No,1, by filing R.O.R. No,1819 of 2004, which met with the failure vide impugned order, dated 28-2-2005. The allotment of the land was made originally in the name of Mst. Basri, in the year 1981, the present petitioner, Nazir Ahmed and one Abdul Majeed, challenged that allotment upto Member, Colonies, Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and was unsuccessful. He again filed the present application which also met with the same result.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is admitted position that the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved of the allotment of the said land in favour of Mst. Basri, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,4, but all the Revenue Authorities upheld the allotment made in favour of Mst. Basri. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allotment was result of fraud and misrepresentation. Mst. Basri was not entitled for the same.
3. Since the petitioner had been involved in litigation with regard to the allotment of land and went upto the Member, Board of Revenue. The allotment was upheld which attained finality. Had the allotment been made fraudulently the present petitioner could raise the objection during the earlier litigation. It is a past and closed matter and cannot be reopened after passage of 24 years.
4. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has validly passed the impugned order. The learned counsel when confronted, could not point out any illegality or any jurisdictional defect that the impugned order has been passed illegally, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The other aspect of the case is that question of fact is involved in this matter which requires recording of evidence and examination of the record and this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, would not go into the same as laid down in Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and others 1993 SCM R 618; Benedict F.D. Souza v. Karachi Building Control Authority and 3 others 1989 SCM R 918 and Federation of. Pakistan and 2 others v. Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan PLD 1991 SC 476.
10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substance in the writ petition which is dismissed in limine.