1. ' ABDUL RAllAK A.THAHIM, J.--This petition had been dismissed in limine by a short order dated 4-11- 1984 and reasons for such short order presently follow.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that petitioner took two pieces of land bearing No.213-A/12-0 acres and B/13-0 acres, on lease in Deh Konkar for Wahl Chahi cultivation purpose, for the period of 10 years commencing from 1973-74. The allotment orders were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (East) in favour of the petitioner on 6-2-1974 and 13-2-1974, respectively.
3. ' The petitioner applied for a renewal of lease of the above land for further period of 30 years as per policy of the Government but respondent No.3. Deputy Commissioner (East), Karachi cancelled the lease by an order dated 3-12- 1983 on the ground that petitioner has failed to cultivate the land during last 5/6 years. By the same order this land has been resumed to Government as provided under section 24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Being aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 161 of Land Revenue Code to the Commis sioner, Karachi Division, who also dismissed his appeal on 11-12-1984. The order of the Commissioner was challenged in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue, Sind Hyderabad, by an order dated 12-3-1984 dismissed his revision.
4. ' We had issued a pre-admission notice to the Advocate-General. We have heard Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Additional Advocate- General for the respondents.
5. 'Petitioner was granted land for 10 years commencing from 1973-74 on lease and that period is over. The grievance of the petitioner is that order refusing to renew the lease is not proper. We are not inclined to agree with Mr.Syed Sarfraz Ahmed because grant of lease or renewal is discretion of the relevant authorities and grant of extension of lease, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
6. Such grants are made according to the policy of the Government. In this case though petitioner had failed to cultivate, the land but in spite of that during last 10 years his lease was neither cancelled nor the possession was interfered with. Mr.Syed Sarfraz Ahmed has argued that the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies under the law and is now entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
7. ' On the point of maintainability of writ petition in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, we would like to refer following cases:-
(i) In case of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139, it has been held by the Supreme Court that when a tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, then it has a jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and if the decision is incorrect it does not render the decision without jurisdiction. It has been further observed that High Court, in writ jurisdiction, not competent to interfere with order of Tribunal on purely equitable considerations.
(ii) In a case of Abdul Salam Qureshi and another v. Judge, Special Court of Banking for Sind and another PLD 1984 Kar. 462, a Division Bench of this Court placed reliance inter alia on the cases of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commis sioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236 and the above case of Muhammad Husain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139 and held that a mere wrong decision would not render the decision without jurisdiction.
(iii) In a case of Abdul Rashid and others v. Muhammad Riaz and others 1984 SCMR 450, while dealing with dispute over inheri tence of property and concurrent findngs on question of facts by Courts below the Supreme Court has held as under:- "It would be noticed that both the above-noted issues, on which the decision of the case hinges, relate to questions of fact, on which the three Courts below have given concurrent findings.
8. ' The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner only amounted to a request requiring us to reappraise the evidence and reverse the above-noted concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the learned lower Courts. We are afraid in the circumstances of this case we do not consider it proper to do so. Leave is, therefore, refused." and same view has also taken in case of Mst. Musharofa Begum v. Syed Nayyat Hussain and others 1984 SCMR 377 and Honourable Supreme Court held that finding of fact cannot be interfered with by High Court on its writ jurisdiction.
9. 'We are of the view that Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the ground that petitioner has exhausted all the remedies available under the relevant law. The object to provide a relief in addition to a right of appeal or other adequate remedy, the High Courts in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction have to rectify jurisdic- C tional defects or order passed in excess of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction or orders passed arbitrarily.
10. ' In the present case there are three concurrent findings of Tribunals against the petitioners. We are not supposed to make factual enquiry in this matter in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
11. ' For the reasons stated above we are of the view that this petition is without any substance. We, therefore, dismiss this petition in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.