1. JUDGMENT CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. - The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the state land comprising killa Nos. 5/2, 5, 7/2, 14 to 17 of Sq. No. 53 measuring 7 acres 1 kanal, 17 marlas situated in Chak No. 65/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad was allotted to the petitioner under Grow More Food Scheme on 24.11.1956. The petitioner remained in possession of the land in question till 196L When the land was included in the schedule of temporary cultivation under the general orders of the Government. The petitioner applied for the allotment of alternate state land according to the Government instructions contained in their letter No. 1488-71/1277-CLIII, dated 26.4.1971. He was declared eligible to get alternate land vide Collector's order dated 22.11.1973.
2. He was allotted state land measuring 31 kanals 14 marlas in Chak No. 65/GB and land measuring 21 kanals, 7 marlas situated in Chak No. 64/GB vide order dated 22.12.1973. Petitioner was also granted proprietary rights on 23.12.1981. The inhabitants of the Chaks tiled a complaint against the petitioner before the Collector on the ground that the petitioner was not fulfilling the condition of the original tenancy, therefore, he was not eligible to get alternate land and proprietary rights. The Collector entrusted the complaint to EAC (R) Faisalabad who submitted his report to the Collector and found that the petitioner was not in self-cultivating possession of his original tenancy and the entries in the khasra girdawari had been manipulated by means of ink remover and fake antedate entries in the revenue record in favour of the allottee were made by the patwari of the chak. Necessary permission to review the orders dated 22.11.1973, 22.12.1973 and 23.12.1980 was obtained from the Commissioner of the Division. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the petitioner observed that the alternate land was obtained by the petitioner by means of fraud and the Collector reviewed his earlier order vide order dated 16.4.1984. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the Commissioner Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad who dismissed the same vide order dated 22.11.1983.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue who dismissed the same vide order dated 3.1.1984, hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders of the Tribunals below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He submits that Muhammad Ashraf filed W.P. No. 658/96 which was decided on 26.7.1968 by the Division Bench of this Court reported as PLD 1968 Lahore 1155 Muhammad Ashraf Kv. Board of Revenue West Pakistan. In obedience of the direction of this Court, in the aforesaid judgment respondent issued scheme for allotment of alternate land to the allottees under the Grow More Food Scheme effected vide letter dated 26.4.1971. The petitioner approached the Collector concerned under the aforesaid scheme which was accepted by the Collector vide order dated 22.11.1973 and thereafter alternate land was given to the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.1973. The Governor Inspector Team also inspected the record and found that petitioner was eligible for allotment of the said land. The Collector also passed the order in favour of the petitioner on 23.12.1980 .After persuing the original record as is evident from the order of the 23.12.1980. He further submits that Tribunals below did not advert to this aspect of the case and did not peruse these documents, therefore, orders of the Tribunals below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that private respondents submitted application/complaint before the Collector who entrusted the same to EAC(R) who submitted report without associating the petitioner, therefore, the basic report on the basis of which the Tribunals below have decided the case against the petitioner is non-existent in the eyes of law as the report was submitted without providing hearing to the petitioner. 1h support of his contention he further submits when the basic order is without lawful authority the superstructure shall fall on the ground, In support of his contentions he relied upon the following judgments:- PLD 1971 S.C. 124 (Mansab Ali Vs. Amir and 3 others)
4. PLD 1971 Peshawar 170 (Sardar Ghulam Sarwar Khan, etc. Kv. Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan, etc.)
5. 1998 SCM R 1863 (Aftab Shahban Mirani Vs. President of Pakistan and others).
6. He further submits that this aspect was not considered by the Tribunals below, therefore, same is result of misreading and non-reading of the record and the orders of Tribunals below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following judgments:- 1982 CLC 361 (M.K. Khakwani Vs. Commissioner, Multan Division, etc.)
7. 1986 SCM R 651 (Muhammad Mubeen, Kv. Abdul Hakim and others).
8. He further submits that private respondents did not i.e application before the Collector for review of the earlier orders within the prescribed period, therefore, impugned order is in violation of Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that petitioner filed a writ petition on 24.1.1983 by concealing material facts that petitioner had already tiled civil suit qua the same subject-matter and relief. He further submits, that petitioner was dispossessed from the land in question on 14.11.1983. He further submits that Tribunals below have concurrently given finding of fact against the petitioner that petitioner did not qualify for alternate land in terms of letter dated 26th April, 1971.
9. As the petitioner did not develop the land up to the prescribed limit i.e. 50 per cent of land and got the entries manipulated with the connivance of the patwari. He further submits that petitioner was provided personal hearing before the Tribunals below, therefore, judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law.
10. The learned Addl. A.G. Also adopted the arguments of the learned counsel of the respondents.
11. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal, submits that petitioner had withdrawn his suit on 21.3.1984. He further submits that Cabinet Division has decided to grant proprietary rights to the persons who are in possession of the State land and the petitioner is in possession of the land in question.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that petitioner had concealed material facts from the contents of the writ petition that the petitioner had already filed civil suit qua the same subject-matter and relief before filing the writ petition. This fact brings the case that the petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands. It is settled proposition of law that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the superior Courts. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:- PLD 1973 S.C. 236 (Nawabzada Raunaq All Khan's case)
12. 1998 SCM R 1462 {Rana Muhammad Arshad's case)
13. 1993 SCMR 196 (Ghulam Mustafa's case)
14. 1969 SCM R 141 {Abdul Rashid's case).
15. It is also settled proposition of law that writ petition is not maintainable against the concurrent finding of fact. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:- 1974 SCM R 279 {Khuda Bakhsh Vs. Muhammad Sharif and another)
16. PLD 1981 SC 246 (Muhammad Sharif and another . Vs. Muhammad Afial. Sohail, etc.)
17. PLD 1981 S.C. 522 (Abdul Rehman's Bajwa's case.
18. It is also settled proposition of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its on finding in place of the finding of the Tribunals below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mussadaq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law. It is also settled proposition of law that each and every case is to be decided on its on peculiar circumstance and facts. The petitioner was granted ample opportunity to rebut the allegations qua interpolations in the revenue record with the connivance of the patwari before three Tribunals below but petitioner failed to discharge his onus.
19. In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.