Appellant Muhammad Iqbal alias Bata (30) having been tried for the murder of his maternal-aunt Mst. Khurshid Bibi (35) alongwith the acquitted co-accused Afzal, Nazir and Khizar alias Khizra (not sent up for trial) was convicted and sentenced under section 302, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000 in default to serve another term of one year's R.I. In addition to the payment of Rs.10,000 as compensation to legal-heirs of the deceased by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat vide the impugned judgment, dated 16-4-1990 has preferred the present appeal emerging out of the following facts.
2. Mst. Jaina Bibi P.W.3 mother of the deceased on 26-4-1989 around 10-00 a.m. Got her statement Exh.P.C. Recorded with Ijaz Ahmad, S.I. P.W.7, Incharge Police Post Charanwala on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was registered by Muhammad A.I/S.I., S.H.O. Police Station Pahrianwali 7-1/2 kilometres from the place of occurrence the same day at 11 a.m. To the effect that the complainant being the sole heir of her-father Allah Din was vested by the latter with the entire estate comprising house and the agricultural land during his lifetime, whose wedlock with Muhammad Sharif solemnised 40/42 years earlier yielding the deceased fell a prey to estrangement culminating into the farmer---s second marriage leaving the deceased with the complainant who, 20 years ago was married to Muhammad Alam, who raising three off springs i.e. 2 daughters and a son became a widow with the demise of her husband 3/4 years preceding the incident whereupon with a view to catering for their sources of living the complainant bestowed unto her entire agricultural land over which the accused-party had an eye in the furtherance whereof the deceased in the company of her mother and daughter Mst. Bushra Bibi (15) P.W.5 was waylaid early in the morning by the appellant alongwith the above-named co-accused equipped with hatchets en-route to their Dera near the canal embankment and inflicted injuries on her neck, upper limb and back to which she succumbed on the spot. The occurrence was also witnessed by Muhammad Zaman P.W.4 and Muhammad Inayat (the won over P.W.), nearby villagers who happened to be on the brick-kiln of Muhammad Din for the purchase of bricks within immediate vicinity of the place of occurrence.
3. Ijaz Ahmad, S.I. P.W.7 after recording the complaint prepared thedeceased's injury statement Exh.P.F., inquest report Exh.P.G., rough sketch Muhammad Nawaz had sublet the land, but the same has been refuted by Muhammad Bakhsh D.W.3, who says he has been working with Nawaz Khan as a servant and not as a sub-lettee. Muhammad Nawaz defendant D.W.1 had deposed that the land had not been privately partitioned: but continued to be a collective ownership, and in support of his plea he had examined Ahmad Bakhsh co-sharer as D.W.2, and Ijaz Ahmad, another co-owner, as D.W.4, who claim to have been receiving from Muhammad Nawaz tenant produce of different crops, over the years and have stated that they are not interested in eviction of the tenant. Ijaz Ahmad D.W.4 says, he is paternal uncle of Nawaz Khan and has thus been treated to be an interested and not an independent witness: In his examination-in-chief Ijaz Ahmad has testified to the effect that the joint land has been partitioned amongst co-owners, although the construction of the sentence is confusing, inasmuch as it has been said that the land is
3. The evidence led by the plaintiff, according to the learned counsel for Muhammad Nawaz, defendant-petitioner, does not at all inspire confidence, for the P.Ws. Have made vague and inconsistent statements about the time when and the manner in which, private partition, as claimed by the plaintiff, had taken place, and the fact remains that the land has not so far been partitioned and it continues to be a collective ownership.
4. It is to be borne in mind that in writ jurisdiction it is not possible for this Court to evaluate the evidence on record, nor can this Court call upon the parties to produce further evidence and appreciate it in an effort to undertake a factual inquiry about the actual position obtaining at the spot. This is for the revenue Courts to do, as it is their, exclusive domain. Provisions relating 'to appeal, review and revision are contained in sections 80 to 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
Original order in this case had been passed by the Tehsildar, with powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, and appeal against this order had been heard and decided by the A.C., with powers of Collector. Revision lay to the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner, and it was duly disposed of by him on 9-5-1994. It appears that the aggrieved person had even filed a review petition. Which was dismissed on 13-6-1994. Section 84 empowers the Board of Revenue to call for record of any case, pending before, or having been disposed of by, any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court, subordinate to it, and, on examining the record, proceed to pass a proper order. There is no bar in the way of the B.O.R, to interfere with the proceedings, or to vary, modify or reverse an order pronounced by any Officer or Court under its superintendence. Thus, if any remedy was available to the aggrieved person, proper forum for enforcing the same was the Board of Revenue and not the High Court. Unfortunately it has now become a common practice that in 2vt.Ry matter in which in the first instance the law has provided a forum, in the form of a Civil Court, or a Revenue Court, or a Criminal Court, or an administrative or a quasi-judicial Tribunal the person who does not find himself satisfied with the verdict given by any such forum is ill-advised to run to the High Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, whether or not there is any room or any justification for filing a writ petition. The present one is an instance of similar nature. The writ petition plainly is not competent and is hereby dismissed in limine.