The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the consolidation scheme of village in-question (Esa Khail) 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 Addl. Deputy Commissioner, (Consolidation) (chaving power of Collector), Mianwali, who dismissed the same vide order dated 27-9-1993. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Addl: Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, who accepted the same vide order dated 03-07-1994 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 22-71998 and remanded the case to the Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha. The Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha made further amendments after remand in the Wandas of the parties vide order dated 14-101999. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same vide order dated 22-01-2004. The petitioner being aggrieved filed review petition before the Member Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16-092004. 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 22-01-12004 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 Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation) in the appeal and also demanding more. The Addl.
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 16-09-2004. According to which Khasra number reserved for "Aasaish-eDeh" 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. Vs. The Member Board of Revenue; etc." (1989 SCM R 1086)
"Falak Sher and others. Vs. Sharif and others." (1989 SCM R 1096)
It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding 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. Vs. M. Musaddaq Naseem." (NJ) 1973 Lahore 600)
"Syed Azmat Ali Shah. Vs. Chief Settlement, etc." (PLD 1964 S.C. 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. Vs. Chief Settlement committee." (PLD 1973 S.C. 236)
"Rana Muhammad Arshad. Vs. Addl: Commissioner, etc." (1998 S.C.M.R. 1462)
"Kh. Muhammad Sharif. Vs. Federation of Pakistan, etc." (PLD 183 Lahore 725)
"Federation of Pak. Etc. Vs. Haji M. Saif-ullah Khan, etc." -(PLD 1989 S.C. 166)
In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. .