' The dispute in this case relates to a plot measuring 8 Merles bearing Khasra No,1184 situate in Mauza Ghakkar Mandi, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, which was allegedly purchased by the petitioner on 31-3-1970 vide a registered sale-deed for a consideration of Rs,4,000 from Muhammad Sharif respondent and one Muhammad Ali. On 30-6-1977 this plot was confirmed in 'Wanda' of the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner also occupied plot measuring 8 Marlas bearing Khasra No,1181. Muhammad Sharif respondent filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 30-6-1977 asserting that he had in fact sold plot measuring 8 Marlas comprising Khasra No,1181 to the petitioner and not from Khasra No,1184. The description given in the sale-deed clearly depicted that plot comprising Khasra No,1181 was sold to the petitioner: The appeal filed by respondent was accepted and the order passed in appeal was maintained upto the level of the Member, Board of Revenue, in that, the revision petition filed by petitioner against order, dated 21-6-1983 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was rejected on 21-2-1985 by the. Member, Board of Revenue. Being dissatisfied with those orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with urban immovable property as per terms of "Masawada Scheme Ishtamal".
It was also pointed out that the petitioner had filed suits for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing him from Khasra No,1184; one of the suits was withdrawn, and the other suit was compromised. It was settled between the parties that the petitioner would not be dispossessed except in due course of law. It was stated that the dispute was referred to the arbitrators by the parties. The arbitrators delivered Award against the petitioner. The matter is, however, still pending before the Civil Court for decision.
3. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was sold 8 Marlas of land comprising Khasra No,1181 but inadvertently Khasra No,1184 was mentioned in the sale-deed. It was submitted that the plot in dispute comprising Khasra No,1184 was never sold to the petitioner. The petitioner had encroached upon the same and started asserting that he had orally purchased that plot as well. It was stated that the petitioner failed to produce any document to establish title in respect of both plots. It was stated that the petitioner failed before the Arbitrators as well as before all the Consolidation authorities to prove that he had purchased plot comprising Khasra No,1184. It was lastly contended that the petitioner wants to retain both the plots of land when in fact he had purchased only one plot from the respondent. It was contended that this Court would not issue writ in aid of injustice.
' At this stage learned counsel for petitioner stated that the petitioner is prepared to settle the dispute in the Civil Court where arbitration proceedings are already pending decision between the parties. Learned counsel representing the respondent pointed out that after the Arbitrators had given the Award in favour of the respondent the matter has concluded.
4.
5. #TBS
6. Rel.
7. #TBE
8. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the record. It appears that when the plot in dispute comprising Khasra No,1184 was allocated in favour of the petitioner by the Consolidation Officer he raised no objection to the jurisdiction of the letter but in appeal when the order of the Consolidation Officer was reversed he raised objection of jurisdiction. He at no stage pleaded lack of jurisdiction vested in the Consolidation Officer to allocate the disputed plot to him. It is true that in "Masawada Scheme Ishtamal" the disputed plot is situated in urban tract of land sought to be excluded from consolidation but he is estopped to challenge the jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities, when he himself approached them.
The Arbitrators in their Award, the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and the learned Member, Board of Revenue, held that plot comprising Khasra No,1184 was owned by the respondent and was not sold to the petitioner. The description given in the sale-deed affirms that respondent sold plot out of Khasra No,1181. This finding of fact can hardly be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner had already approached the Civil Court to resolve the issue involving disputed questions of fact, but had withdrawn the suit with permission to re-file the same. That being appropriate form for decision of the dispute, I am not inclined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to determine the issue, involving resolution of the disputed facts.
5. In the result, I dismiss this petition with no order as to costs.