CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the consolidation scheme of village in question (Esa Khan) was confirmed by Consolidation Officer on 30-9-1992 under section 10(3) of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (Consolidation) (having power of Collector), Mianwali, who dismissed the same vide order dated 27-9-1993. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, who accepted the same vide order, dated 3-7-1994 and certain amendments were made in the Wandas of the parties. The respondents being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, who accepted the same vide order, dated 22-7-1998 and remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha made further amendments after remand in the Wandas of the parties vide order, dated 14-10-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same vide order, dated 22-1-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed review petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide order, dated 16-9-2004. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the Member, Board of Revenue passed the impugned order without application of mind and without perusing the original documents and also without adverting to the entitlement of the parties, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that the respondents have been given more land as compared to their entitlement, whereas petitioner is given less land as compared to his entitlement as is depicted from copy of "Register Gardwari" attached with the constitutional petition as Annexure "L".
3. The learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the constitutional 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. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 22-1-2004 to resolve the controversy between the parties: "The petitioner, of course, cannot derive double benefit of getting that land which was given to him by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in the appeal and also demanding more. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) made an equitable distribution keeping in view the compactness and the parties who were joint holders were properly adjusted without disturbing the other owners who were not a party in this case."
The Member, Board of Revenue also decided the review petition after perusing the record as is evident from paragraph No.3 of the impugned order, dated 16-9-2004. According to which Khasra number reserved for "Aasaish-e-Deh" is not supported by record. Coupled with the facts that the petitioner was a petty landlord but amassed fortune as a result of consolidation also appears to be the figment of the petitioner's imagination.
6. It is settled principle of law that writ jurisdiction is not proper forum for agitating grievance against the allocation of land in consolidation scheme as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: Bahawal Bakhsh v. The Member, Board of Revenue and others 1989 SCMR 1086 and Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others 1989 SCMR 1096.
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 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 anti Rehabilitation Commissioner and others PLD 1964 SC 260.
It is also settled principle of law that the substantial justice has been done, therefore, equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of the person, who approaches the Court. Keeping in view the special circumstances and facts of the case, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per law laid down in the following judgments:-- Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Committee PLD 1973 SC 236; Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Additional Commissioner and others 1998 SCMR 1462; Kh. Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 Lah. 725 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji M. Saif Ullah Khan and others PLD 1989 SC 166.