' SHOAIB SAEED, J. Through the instant writ petition, petitioner has impugned the orders dated 19-1- 2013, 17-12-2012, 23-10-2012 and 30-6-2012 passed by the revenue hierarchy.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with others moved an application before Naib Tehsildar/A.C.II, Sahiwal (respondent No,4) under Section 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for partitioning of Khewat No, 76/76, Khatuni No,563 to 570 measuring 79-Kanals and 11-Marlas situated in Chak No,52/D', Tehsil and District Sahiwal, Petitioner and respondent No,5 are co-owners with regard to the afore referred land, petitioner owns 51-Kanals 14-Marlas while respondent. No,5 owns 27-Kanals 14-Marlas.
' Respondent No,4 apportioned the afore-referred land into two Wandajaat, wherein petitioner was given 51-Kanal 14-Marlas land in Wanda No,1 and respondent No,5 was given 27-Kanals 2-Marlas in Wanda No,2. The order was based upon the principle of compactness which is also evident from Aks Shajjra appended with the petition. Khasra No,41/21/2 and 21/1 being away from the other land of the petitioner were given for the reason that said land was in possession of the petitioner. Khasra No,41/21/1 was reserved as a thoroughfare. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No,3 in appeal who dismissed the same vide order dated 23-10-2012. Against the said orders, revision was preferred before respondent No,2 who also dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 17-12-2012 petitioner filed R.O.R. With respondent No, 1 who after hearing both the parties dismissed the same on 19-1-2013.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that objections filed by the petitioner against Wandajaat were not properly adverted to by respondents Nos.1 to 4. It was also averred that objection petition was moved on 30-6-2012 and respondent No,4 without considering the objections passed impugned order on 30-6-2012; that land given in Khasra No,41/21/2 was of inferior quality and was not irrigated by canal water; that land comprised in Khasra Nos.41/21/2 and 21/1 was far away from other land of the petitioner; that the orders, passed by respondent No,4 were written on stamp paper which is against the provisions of Land Revenue Act; that the order of partition is against the mode of partition; that the impugned orders were passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind, therefore, same are liable to be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the case reported as Muhammad Younis and another v. Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others (2004 YLR 793).
4. Conversely, it was argued that petitioner filed a civil suit in respect of the same matter which was dismissed as withdrawn. This fact was kept hidden and not disclosed. No objection in respect of passage was taken in the objection petition filed by the petitioner. Application for objection is dated 23-6-2012 and not 30-6-2012. Contention of the petitioner that the impugned orders were passed in his absence is belied by the order dated 13-2-2012 passed by Naib Tehsildar/A.C.I (Annex-K). It was also contended that writ petition was not maintainable in view of the dictum laid in the cases reported as Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others (1991 SCM R 970), Dilshad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others (1986 SCM R 1396), Muhammad Mansha and others v. Sharifan Bibi and others (2006 CLC 608) and Khuda Yar v. M.B.R. And others (2003 M LD 1075).
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, parties co-owned the property which was partitioned and Wandajaat prepared accordingly whereunder the mode of partition was made in line with the principle of Consolidation and Partition. Though in the Wanda, some land was given to the petitioner which was not contiguous, the same was done as the petitioner was in possession of the said land. The question in respect of land being inferior cannot be raised as it is compactness on which partition is based.
Moreover, partitioning of agriculture land is to be based on its classification/ category. Petitioner also approached the Civil Court in this regard but without success.
7. Objection in respect of order of respondent No,4 being on stamp paper is rebutted by the law laid down in 1990 M LD 575 wherein it is held "partition cannot be implemented unless the stamp is filed and instrument of partition is drawn". The entire revenue hierarchy had given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner.
8. Conclusions made by the Revenue Authorities having jurisdiction with regard thereto, based on cogent reasons should not be interfered in constitutional jurisdiction. Concurrent findings of the authorities below passed against the petitioner were not justified to be reopened. This Court cannot substitute its own findings in place of findings of Courts below.
9. Judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts, which is not helpful to the petitioner. In view of the judgments afore-referred by the counsel for respondents, this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.