'RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J. ---Through this Constitutional petition petitioners have assailed the vires of the order dated 3-12-1992 passed by Member Board of Revenue, Sindh i,e, respondent No,2 whereby he reviewed his earlier order dated 9-1-1992.
2. Facts in brief leading to this petition appear to be that petitioner being Mangla Dam affectees were allotted agricultural lands measuring 800 acres out of U.A. Nos.55, 56 and 255 of Deh Jado Pitafi, Taluka Mirpur Mathelo in the year 1965 on the recommendation of WAPDA Authorities. Each of the affectees was purportedly handed over possession of 32 acres of land alongwith sketch maps and allotment order. With the issuance of Ijazatnamas in their favour, they reportedly approached the relevant authorities for survey of their pieces of land according to the block survey for the reason that the pieces of lands allotted to them were from unassessed area. Consequent upon block survey, by Barrage Authorities, total area in favour of the petitioners turned out to be 687-26 acres as against their entitlement of 800 acres.
3. Aforesaid allottees being dissatisfied with the result of survey approached the Board of Revenue for allotment of the deficit area which was declined by Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage vide order dated 22-6-1974. In the meanwhile it was alleged that the petitioners had unauthorisedly encroached upon 81 acres of such land which was to be disposed of to the locals. It further appears that M/s. Paryal son of Haji Paryo and Ariz Muhammad Malik of Deh Jado Pitafi made an application to Colonization Officer, Guddu Barrage for inclusion of certain lands in the schedule of lands reserved for disposal to local persons. On such application Colonization Officer made a reference vide letter dated 10-7-1975 to the Board of Revenue whereupon following order was passed and communicated to him vide memorandum dated 13-10-1975: "The Board of Revenue, Sindh has been pleased to consider the request of the petitioner M/s. Piral S/o Haji Paryo and Ariz Muhammad Malik Deh Jado Pitafi Taluka Mirpur Mathelo, and order that the land in question is outside the allocation of Mangla Dam displaced persons and is reported to be under lawfully created P.K.M. Rights of locals should be disposed of under New Agriculture land grant policy in open katchery as the deficiency in the grant of Mangla Dam displaced persons is not to be made good from the area reserved for Haris and small khatedars etc."
4. Aforesaid order of C.O. Dated 22-6-1974 and the memorandum dated 13-10-1975 were impugned by the petitioners before the High Court in C.P. No,D-1359 of 1975 whereupon both the orders were set aside and the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue for determination of the following questions:
(1) Petitioner's claim to retain 81 acres of land in dispute,
(2) Petitioners entitlement to the grant of deficit land on account of block survey of their lands, and
(3) Entitlement of Paryal and Ariz Muhammad to the 16 acres allegedly in their possession.
5. This direction was made by the High Court vide judgment dated 6-2-1980.
6. On remand, late Ghulam Qadir Member Board of Revenue by his order dated 23-5-1982 held that as per Land Grant Policy petitioners were entitled to only that land of which possession was given to them as contained in paragraph-19 of the Terms and Conditions of the Grant and they were not entitled to additional lands after block survey of the lands in their possession. He further held the petitioners to be encroachers upon 81 acres of State land which was never granted to them.
Consequently he confirmed the view taken by Colonization Officer that the petitioners were not entitled to additional area as being deficit.
7. This order was again impugned in C.P.No,D-533 of 1982 which was decided on 6-11-1989 remanding the case to the Member Board of Revenue to decide the following two questions:
(1) Whether the aforesaid area of 81 acres was part of the land of which possession was given to the petitioners in 1965 in pursuance of the allotment made and in respect of which sketch was prepared?
(2) Entitlement of respondents Paryal son of Haji and Ariz Muhammad to the 16 acres of lands allegedly in their possession as this question had not been adverted to by the Member Board of Revenue?
8. In the last round of litigation, learned Member Board of Revenue by his order dated 9-1-1992 answered point No,1 in favour of petitioner and point No,2 in favour of Paryal and Ariz Muhammad. It may be pertinent to point out that during the hearing, an application was made before him on behalf of Mevo, Hassan, Imdad Ali, Abdul Razak and others for joining them as party to the proceedings and though their counsel was heard by the learned Member Board of Revenue, he declined their prayer for the sole reason that the case had been remanded to him for the determination of only two questions formulated by the High Court.
' The matter did not end here. After a couple of months respondents Hassan, Abdul Razak and Imdad Ali i,e, respondents Nos.4 to 6 herein moved a review petition under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 for review of the order dated 9-1-1992, on the grounds that deficiency in grant of Mangla Dam affectees could not be made good out of the area reserved for haris and small khatedars; the Board of Revenue had overlooked important documentary evidence brought on record with the result that patent error appeared to have been committed while passing the impugned order. On facts they pleaded that they claimed 8 acres from U.A. No,55 and 16 acres from U.A. No,56 out of 81 acres in dispute as such area of land had all along remained in their occupation i,e, respondents Nos.4 to 6.
10. During the hearing of the review petition, learned Member called for a report from Colonization Officer with regard to aforesaid 24 acres of land claimed by the respondents. On his part Colonization Officer visited the site on 15-10-1992 in presence of the parties, got prepared a sketch, made a note thereon and submitted his report which after an opportunity of hearing to the parties persuaded learned Member Board of Revenue to review his earlier order to the extent of allowing the prayer of the respondents to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. By the same order he held that respondents Nos.4 to 6 though in physical possession of their pieces of land were not associated with the original proceedings and such evidence did not come to light at the time of deciding the main case. Taking into consideration documentary evidence indicating their cultivating possession over an area of 24 acres of lands as aforesaid he expressed the view that such evidence could not be brushed aside. Resultantly, he held that they were entitled to retain that area in their possession which shall not be disturbed. It is precisely this order that has been impugned in this petition before us.
11. At the hearing learned counsel for the parties conceded that by virtue of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, learned Member Board of Revenue had the requisite jurisdiction to review his earlier order on the grounds envisaged in the above said provision of law. However, learned counsel for the petitioners seriously assailed the findings of the learned Member on the ground that there was no adequate, satisfactory and reliable material before him for recording such findings in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 6 who were not in possession of the lands in their own rights. Their possession at best was no better that of encroachers, he continued. Elaborating this submission further, learned counsel assailed the entries made in the sketch purportedly made by Tapedar, countersigned by Supervising Tapedar, Assistant Colonization Officer, Mirpur Mathelo and lastly by Colonization Officer making endorsement thereon that he found respondent Hassan to be in cultivating possession of 10-05 acres, respondent Imdad Ali in cultivating possession of 13-37 acres and Jam Pari Khambhro ,as hari of allottee in cultivating possession of 11-4 acres.
12. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the report of the Colonization Officer as well as the sketch prepared by the authorities consequent upon a reference made by the Member, Board of Revenue. While entries with regard to cultivating possession in favour of respondents Hassan and Imdad Ali are crystal clear, unambiguous and not seriously controverted, entry in relation to cultivating possession of Jam Pari as tenant of the allottee has been strenuously assailed before us. Be that as it may, the area of the lands shown to be in possession of respondents Hassan and Imdad Ali works out to be 24-2 acres which is sufficient to defuse the weight of the submission.
13. It is well-settled position in law that in the exercise of writ jurisdiction High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of the fact recorded by a Court of law or a Tribunal created under a provision of law, unless such findings be completely arbitrary, perverse or based on misreading of evidence. In fact in the exercise of such jurisdiction High Court does not sit in appeal over the findings of a forum of law. In the case in hand it is very difficult to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel that while reviewing the earlier order, learned Member acted contrary to the settled principles of law or that he acted in a perverse manner. It is true that public functionaries and more particularly functionaries vested with quasi-judicial authority are expected to exercise the jurisdiction honestly, fairly, reasonably and within the sphere of authority vested in them, no strong circumstance appears on the face of record to suggest that the impugned order suffers from any inherent legal infirmity or want of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. There is no gain in reiterating that such jurisdiction is always exercised in order to foster the ends of justice, to right a wrong and to suppress the mischief rather than to perpetuate an illegal act. Impugned order on the face of it does not appear to have caused miscarriage of justice, therefore, it is hardly possible to strike down the same. In view of peculiar circumstances we refrain from discussing the factual aspects and leave the parties to seek their remedy that may be available to them before proper forum of law.
14. For the foregoing facts and reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith listed application with no order as to costs.