' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Present Constitutional petition proceeds against order dated 5-1-2006, whereby the learned Member Board of Revenue dismissed petitioner's revision petition.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the consolidation scheme of village Chakbandi, District Sahiwal was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 27-9-2005, which order challenged by the petitioner through the appeal. The learned Collector (Consolidation) accepted his appeal and allocated the land measuring 1-Kanal, 10-Marlas in Killa No,13/1 of Sq. No,27 to the petitioner by withdrawing the same from vanda of the respondent (Hanif son of Mehmood) and in lieu thereof he withdrew 1-Kanal, 10-Marlas from vanda of the petitioner and allocated the same to vanda of Muhammad Aslam, from whom I-Kanal, 10 Marlas of land of Killa No,26-14-2 was withdrawn and allocated to the respondent. The petitioner filed the appeal against the order of Collector, challenging withdrawal of land measuring 1-Kanal, 10-Marlas in Killa No, 26/17 from him. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide order dated 26-9- 2000. The petitioner assailed the said decision, through the revision petition which was also dismissed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, vide impugned order dated 5-1-2006, hence the present Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Member, Board of Revenue and prays for the acceptance of the petition.
4. In view of the arguments of learned counsel, I have examined the available record and the impugned order and find that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has legally, adequately and rightly dealt with the contentions raised by the learned counsel and did not commit any legal error, while rejecting petitioner's revision petition. The learned Member Board of Revenue has decided the matter after embarking upon every aspect of the case and has rightly maintained the order impugned before him. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction nor passed in excess of jurisdiction by the learned Member Board of Revenue. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional defect/error in the impugned order. It may be noted that in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, this Court has only to see whether a Tribunal or Court has acted without jurisdiction or violated statute or law laid down by the superior Courts. This Court in such like cases, is not called upon to reappraise the evidence and the writ petitions are not to be decided in the manner appeals are to be heard or/and decided. In this regard, Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others PLD 1981 SC 522 can be referred.
5. Admittedly, the highest public functionary in the revenue hierarchy has decided the factual controversies raised by the parties on the basis of available record. It has been held in Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Forest Departmetn, Punjab, Lahore through Division Forest Officer v.
Ghulam Bibi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415 that when the forums available in hierarchy under the relevant law had decided all the controversial questions on the basis of record and in accordance with law, then the High Court should not interfere in the matter and it could not go into the questions of fact in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. The petitioner has filed the present Constitutional Petition on 10-1-2007 to challenge order dated 5-1-2006 i.e, after the lapse of one year. Under the B circumstances, the present petition is hit by the principle of laches. Reference can be made to Ahmed and 25 others v. Ghama and 5 others 2005 SCM R 119.
7. There is another aspect of the case. Present Constitutional petition has admittedly arisen out of Consolidation proceedings. The petition is incompetent and not maintainable in view of the principles laid down and law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore 1970 SCM R 292, Alam and others v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue and others 188 SCMR 310 (1), Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others 1989 SCM R 1096, Allah Rehman and others v. Amtul Qayyum and another 1989 SCM R 1817 and Asad Riaz v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. 1997 SCM R 1611.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to exercise the Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, which is otherwise discretionary and equitable.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is incompetent and devoid of merits as well, thus, the same, stands dismissed on both the counts.