JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J.---Since this writ petition and Writ Petition No.398/94 (Muhammad Qadir etc. v. Board of Revenue and others) are directed against the consolidated judgment, recorded by Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, on 26-12-1991, in Revision Petition No.25 of 1988 (Waheedullah etc. v. Khan Bahadur etc.) and Revision Petition No.26 of 1988 (Mir Bahadur etc. v. Humayoon etc.) and involve identical points of law and fact, therefore, we propose to dispose of the same by this judgment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the year 1981 the land owners of village Saleem Khan, Tehsil Swabi approached the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan with the request to partition the "Shamilat" of the said village. The Deputy Commissioner appointed/deputed Nisar Muhammad, retired Kanoongo, Mardan, on contractual basis, vide his Order No. 196-98/DK, dated 4-2-1981, to carry out the partition work, alongwith the Patwari Halqa, under the supervision of Circle Kanoongo as well as the Revenue Officer and prepare the partition papers. After conducting the necessary enquiries, as were required, the partition papers were finally prepared and a report was submitted to the Tehsildar by Patwari Halqa. The Tehsildar forwarded the case to the Assistant Commissioner.
Swabi, who vide his Letter No.3850/AC dated 21-11-1982 sent the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan for his orders. By his Order No.29HVC, dated 18-1-1983. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the memo./mode of partition and directed that requisite partition mutations be attested. Resultantly Partition Mutation No. 10326 and Mutation No. 10327 were entered and late, attested by the Revenue Officer Circle on 24-1-1984.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed separate appeals before the Settlement Officer, Mardan who marked the same to the Extra-Assistant Settlement Officer for disposal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, vide his order dated 27-11-1985, returned the appeals to the petitioners with the remarks that as he had no jurisdiction to entertain/adjudicate the same, therefore, the petitions be presented before a competent forum.
4. It appears that the petitioners (in both the writ petitions) instead of going to the Civil Court, challenged the verdict of the Deputy Commissioner (dated 18-1-1983) as well as that of the Revenue Officer Circle (dated 24-1-1984) in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Peshawar. The Additional Commissioner, Peshawar accepted the appeals, set aside the impugned orders dated 18-1-1983 and dated 24-1-1984. Mutation Nos.10326 and No.10327 were also cancelled in consequence thereof.
5. Dissatisfied with the findings of the Additional Commissioner. Peshawar, the petitioners challenged the same, by filing revision petitions, in the Court of Muhammad Saleem Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F h., Peshawar. The Member, Board of Revenue after hearing the parties, by his consolidated judgment dated 26-12-1991 accepted both the revision petitions and set aside the order dated 6-3-1988 recorded by the Additional Commissioner holding that the appeals were barred by time. Resultantly the order dated 24-1-1984 of the Revenue Officer, Circle, alongwith Mutations No. 10326 and No. 10327 stood restored. Hence the writ petition in hand.
6. The learned counsel for the parties present and heard at length. We have also gone through the record of the case with some degree of care.
7. It is now well-settled that Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 vests special powers, of extraordinary nature, in the High Court and therefore, the High Court should use them only in "extraordinary circumstances". The High Court, ordinarily, will not review the findings of facts reached by the inferior Courts or Tribunal even if the same are erroneous. It is so because a Court which has the jurisdiction over a subject--matter, has the jurisdiction to decide it rightly, or wrongly, and when the Legislature, in its wisdom, have not chosen to confer a right of appeal against such an erroneous decision, then in that case it would amount to defeat its intent and purpose if the Superior Court is to re-hear the case and substitute its own findings instead of the Tribunal. Further, while issuing the writs (various natures), the High Court only acts in its supervisory capacity and not as an appellate Court. In other words, it would interfere only in those cases where the inferior Courts/Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or acts in excess of its jurisdiction.
8. A perusal of the record would show that the Revenue Officer Circle attested the impugned mutations on 24-1-1984. The petitioners kept silent for a period of about 33 months and thereafter filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar. The Additional Commissioner, without taking note of the fact that the appeals were hopelessly barred by time, accepted the appeals and thus acted in excess of his jurisdiction. The Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar was, therefore, quite justified in setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner who had accepted the time-barred appeals without even condoning the delay. In the circumstances, the Member, Board of Revenue does not appear to have either acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it. He has decided the matter after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and has also not violated the principle of natural justice in setting aside the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner.
8-A. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the order impugned before us is neither arbitrary nor perverse and that "extraordinary circumstances" do not exist for exercising discretionary powers vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Both the writ petitions are without any substance and are dismissed accordingly.