1. ' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---Necessary facts out of which the present petition arises are that one Sabu was owner of the agricultural land measuring 226 Kanals 13 marlas situated in Mauza Gujiana Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. Out of the said land original owner had transferred land measuring 33 kanals 12 marlas to one Beer Muhammad on 22-12-1961 whereas 133 kanals 12 marlas were gifted by him out of the said land to his nephew namely Nazra (Nazar Muhammad) s/o Mughla vide mutation No, 1310 dated 13-12-1961. After the aforesaid transaction in favour of Beer Muhammad and his nephew Nazra, only 59 kanals 16 marlas remained with the original owner Sabu in the revenue records. Nazra son of Ameera along with some others had filed suit for declaration against the said Nazar Muhammad (Nazra) in the civil Court on the ground that plaintiffs were heirs of Sabu deceased and the aforesaid gift transaction was illegal, void and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiff as the plaintiffs were in possession of land in question as mortgage and collaterals of Sabu deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that the said suit was filed in the year 1962 which was contested by defendant Nazra. Consequently suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11-5-976. Plaintiffs Nazar Muhammad s/o Ameera and others filed appeal before the District Judge who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 7-12-1969. Nazar Muhammad s/o Ameera being aggrieved filed Civil Revision No,167-D of 87 in the Lahore High Court which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 15-3-1987. Thereafter, they filed Civil Petition No, 301 of 1987 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 7-2-1990.
2. During pendency of the proceedings of the suit, said Nazar Muhammad s/o Ameera filed application before the District Collector, Sheikhupura for review of mutation No,1310 dated 13-12-1961 on the ground that this mutation was sanctioned in violation of the provisions of MLR 64 which was allowed by the District Collector vide order dated 7-11-1998. The Revenue Officer in compliance of the said order sanctioned mutation No,987 dated 28-12-1988 wherein earlier mutation mentioned herein above was cancelled. Nazra son of Mughla being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,4329 of 1992 in the Lahore High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 17-5-1992 with the direction to him to seek remedy before the higher revenue authorities. Nazra son of Mughla filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 21-4-1993. Thereafter, he filed Revision Petition No,1168 before the Member, Board of Revenue which was also disposed of vide order dated 15-1-2001. Thereafter, Nazra son of Mughla preferred a miscellaneous application before the District Officer (Revenue) for cancellation of mutation No,987 on the ground that civil Court had declared valid not only the gift made through mutation No,1310 in his favour but had also held that applicant was nephew of Sabu deceased. The said application was accepted by the DO(R) vide order dated 30-9-2002. Nazra son of Ameera being aggrieved filed appeal before the EDO (R) who accepted the same vide its order dated 8-7-2003. Nazra son of Mughla being aggrieved filed Revision Petition No,1494 of 1993 before the Member, Board of Revenue who accepted the same vide order dated 20-9-2004. Petitioners being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,18201 of 2004 in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. Hence, this petition.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned High Court had erred in law to dismiss the constitution petition as the transactions made by the original owner Sabu in favour of Beer Muhammad by transferring land measuring 33 kanals 12 marlas and land measuring 133 kanals 12 marlas was gifted by him in favour of Nazra s/o Mughla vide mutation dated 13-12-1961 in violation of mandatory provisions of MLR 64 and this fact was duly noted by the Revenue Officer at the time of cancellation of mutation vide order dated 7-11-1998. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had reversed the order without adverting to the provisions of MLR 64. The same mistake was committed by the learned High Court.
5. ' We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. ' It is admitted fact that controversy in question has been settled between the parties up to this Court. Judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of A the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner had not brought this fact to the tribunals below. This fact brings the case of the petitioners that petitioners' predecessor in interest had not filed application in the review side with clean hands. Even otherwise it is settled law that once the matter has been finally adjudicated by the Apex B Court, then it is binding between the parties as law laid down by this Court in Pir Bakhsh's case PLD 1987 SC 145. It is settled law that judgment of the civil Court has to give due weight as compared to the C order of the revenue authorities. It is also a settled law that judgment of the Apex Court cannot be overridden or nullified by any executive order, a rule or a dispensation short of legislative will as law laid down by this D Court in various pronouncements. See Works Co-operative Housing Society and another v.
7. The Karachi Development Authority PLD 969 SC 430, Capt. (Retd) Abdul Qayyum, Executive Engineer v. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 4 others PLD 1992 SC 184, Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 84, Province of the Punjab v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari PLD 1997 SC 351. The decisions of the apex Court are binding and must be valid by all Courts and authorities. It is also settled proposition of law that Courts would not allow a judgment of the Supreme Court to be challenged even on a ground which was not E taken before the Supreme Court. See State v. Mujibur Rehman Shami and 2 others PLD 1973 Lahore 1. The question of law has been settled down by this Court after considering provisions of section 11 of C.P.C. And Articles 189 and 201 of the Constitution that civil Court or any other authority had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain any application or any civil suit qua the subject-matter which had already been set at right by the Supreme Court as per law in the following judgments:--
(i) Abdul Majid's case PLD 1992 SC 146.
(ii) Murad Khan's case PLD 1983 SC 82.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Leave refused.