CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. -- Office was directed to fix Writ Petition No. 2464/84 alongwith this writ petition, but office did not fix the said writ petition alongwith this writ petition for today. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Writ Petition No. 2464/84 does not relate to the consolidation and has no relevancy. With the concurrence of both the learned counsel of the parties, this writ petition is being decided today.
2. Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner is owner of land measuring 703 kanals, 6 marlas situated in village Bhularke, Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang. This land was in 'different villages before the consolidation. The consolidation scheme was prepared by Consolidation Officer on 30.4.1970. The petitioner and private respondents being aggrieved filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and accepted the appeal of Riaz Hussain and Pir Shah (respondents) vide order dated 23.9.1970 and remanded the .case to the Consolidation Officer for preparation of scheme afresh. After the remand, the fresh scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner was not satisfied. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before Assistant Commissioner (Consolidation), Chiniot, who dismissed the same. Then the petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the A.D.C. Sargodha, who accepted the same and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer on 15.9.1971. The fresh scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner was dissatisfied. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before Assistant .Commissioner, who dismissed the same on 15.7.1972. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 28.7.1972, who dismissed the same vide order dated 2.9.1972. The petitioner being aggrieved filed second revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 29.1.1975. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the scheme was prepared by incompetent Officer, therefore, basic order is without lawful authority. He further submits that the Petitioner purchased a land measuring 84 kanals and the petitioner was allotted inferior land in lieu of superior land. He further submits that the Tribunals below have decided the case without applying their independent minds.
4. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that this writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on the ground which was not urged before Tribunals below and fresh grounds cannot be urged in Constitutional petition. He further submits that the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of the facts against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunals below. He further submits that the Tribunals below have opportunity to examine the record and pass the impugned order, therefore, the writ petition against the consolidation proceedings, is not maintainable. He further submits that the respondents. are ready even today to exchange the land with the land of the petitioner but the learned counsel of the petitioner did not accept this offer; He further submits that this officer was made by the respondents before the Tribunals below. He further submits that substantial justice has been done, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not taken ground that the consolidation scheme was .prepared by incompetent Officer before the Tribunals below, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to raise fresh ground in Constitutional petition. It is also admitted fact that all the Tribunals below have given concurrent findings of the facts against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- "Khuda Bukhsh Vs. Muhammad Sharif, etc." (1974 SCM R 279)
"Muhammad Sharif,. etc. Vs. Muhammad Afzal Sohail, etc." (PLD 1981 S.C. 246)
"Abdul Rehman Bajwa Vs. Sultan and 9 others" (PLD 1981 S.C. 522) It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunals. below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Musaddaq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). The learned counsel of the respondents has made offer to exchange the land in dispute with the petitioner which was exchanged. through the impugned consolidated scheme but the learned counsel of the petitioner did not accept the offer of the learned counsel of the respondents. The same offer had already been given by the respondents before the Tribunals below to the petitioner but the petitioner had not accepted the same. This fact brings the case in the area that the petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the operation of the impugned orders was not suspended by this Court and by efflux of time, the parties had developed the land in question qua their possession. In this -view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is also settled principle of law that the writ petition qua the consolidation matter is not maintainable. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:- "Falak Sher and others Vs. Sharif and others" (1989 SCM R 1096)
"Muhammad Hanif Vs. REFU and others" '(1989 SCM R 1705)
"Muhammad Khan and 2 others Vs. Muhammad and 6 others" (1989 SCM R 1714)
"Barkat Ali, etc. Vs. Member, Board of Revenue" (1989 SCM R 1732)
"Allah Rehman, etc. Vs. Amtul Qayyum, etc." (1989 SCM R 1817)
7. In view of what has been discussed above,, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.