' This order will dispose of Writ Petition No.44/85, Writ Petition No.45/85 and Writ Petition No.96/85, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The facts necessary for decision of these writ petitions are as follows : ' Afzaal and others sold 82 Kanals 8 Marlas of land vide registered sale-deed dated 1-10-1981 for Rs.1,00,000 to Ghulam Muhammad, Lal and Mir Dad. Two separate suits to pre-empt this sale were filed. One suit was filed by Banaras, Muzaffar and Aziz. It was pleaded by them that they were tenants of the suit land and therefore, had a prior right to purchase. It was further pleaded by them that the sale price of Rs.1,00,000 was not fixed in good faith or actually paid and that the ostensible sale price was Rs.19,500. Maskeen also filed a suit to pre-empt the said sale with similar assertions.
The suit of Banaras, Muzaffar and Aziz was decreed to the extent of 64 Kanals 16 Marlas on payment of Rs.32,100 by Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector on 19-11-1983. The suit of Maskeen was decreed to the extent of 17 Kanal. 12 Marlas on payment of Rs.6,100 by the same decree. It was held by the learned Collector that the market value of the suit land was Rs.480 per Kenai. The defendants-vendees went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (R), Rawalpindi, who dismissed the same and confirmed the judgments and decrees of the Collector.
The vendees filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue where the only question involved was the sale price of the land in dispute. The learned Member, Board of Revenue vide impugned order, dated 14-1-1985, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner(R), Rawalpindi. It was held by the Member Board of Revenue that "since in this case the payment was made before the Sub-Registrar at the rate of Rs.1,220 per Kanal, this evidence could not have been rejected merely on ground that one year's average price was much lower. I would, accordingly accept these revisions and fix the price of the suit land at Rs.1,220 per Kanal according to the amount paid before the Sub-Registrar". The pre-emptors in both the suits have filed Writ Petitions Nos.44 and 45 of 1985 to challenge the above order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
' Muhammad Ayub, a brother of Afzaal etc. sold 5 Kanals 5 Marlas of land for Rs.5,000 to Ghulam Muhammad, Lal Khan and Mir Dad vide registered sale-deed dated 27-9-1981. Maskeen, Banaras, Muzaffar and Aziz filed a suit to pre-empt the said sale pleadings therein that they were tenants of the suit land and therefore, had a prior right of purchase. It was further pleaded by them that the sale price was Rs.1,900 and the price indicated in the registered sale-deed was not fixed in good faith or actually paid. The learned Collector dismissed this suit on behalf of Banaras, Muzaffar and Aziz. This suit was decreed on 18-11-1983 in favour of Maskeen to the extent of 3 Kanals 16 Marlas on payment of Rs.1,900. The learned Collector held that the market value of the suit land was Rs.480 per Kanal. The defendants-vendees Ghulam Muhammad etc. went up in appeal before the Additional Commis sioner (Revenue) who dismissed the same and confirmed the findings of the Collector. This judgment and decree was challenged in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore who disposed of the revision alongwith the connected two revisions mentioned above vide impugned order, dated 14-1-1985 reproduced above.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only point involved in these Constitutional petitions is the assessment of the market value of the suit land and that the assessm ent of market value by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide impugned judgment is arbitrary and against the record of the case. The precise argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the trial Court in the three suits had assessed the market value of the suit land at Rs.480 per Kenal which was based on one year's average sale price of the lands in the village and as such, the learned Member, Board of Revenue should not have enhanced the price arbitrarily specially when there was great disparity between the price assessed by the trial Court and the price claimed by the defendants-vendees. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the learned Member, Board of Revenue should not have upset the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which had limited scope. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Khadim Hussain and others v. Gulab PLD 1954 Lah. 471 and Khalid Bashir v. Fazal Abbas 1981 SCMR 701.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record in these three petitions. It is correct that the learned Member, Board of Revenue differed and set aside the two concurrent findings of Courts below but in my view the judgment of the learned Member, Board of Revenue was unexceptionable. ' The two Courts below did not consider the fact that the entire sale price in both the registered sale-deeds had been paid by the vendees to the vendors in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. The payment was recorded in the endorsement on the sale-deeds. There was, therefore, the presumption of correctness that the amount said to have been paid before the Registrar was actually paid. There is no evidence that any amount which had been paid before the Sub-Registrar was returned by the vendors to the vendees after the registration o the document. Secondly, once it is established that a particular amount A was paid as sale price before the Sub-Registrar, the question o determination of market value did not at all arise. In view of this, th findings of the lower Courts had definitely been given illegally and with material irregularity. The learned Member, Board of Revenue was, therefore, fully justified to set aside those findings and fix the price of the suit land at Rs.1,220 per Kanal according to the amount paid before the Sub-Registrar.
' In this case I find that the impugned order was perfectly legal and with jurisdiction. Even if there had been some defect or flaw in the impugned order, then also it is now a settled law that a "Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and the mere fact that another conclusion could be arrived at from the evidence would not make it a case for interference in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction". In support of this, reliance is placed on Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar PLD 1974 SC 139 and Muhammad Sharif and another v.
Muhammad Afzal Sohail etc. PLD 1981 SC 246. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners were not passed in Constitutional petitions. Both these judgments arose out of civil suits and as such, could not be relied upon for decision of Constitutional petitions in hand.
' In the instant case, I am clear in my mind that the learned Member, Board of Revenue decided the revisions rightly and legally.
5. In view of the above, I find no merits in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed in limine.