SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17-11- 1999 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in Constitution Petition No,D-720 of 1992.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners being Mangla Dam affectees were allotted agricultural land 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 lands 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. The 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 Messrs Paryal son of Haji Paryo and Arz 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 the aforesaid application, Colonization Officer made a reference vide letter dated 10-7-1995 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 Messrs Piral s/o Haji Paro 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." The aforesaid order of C.O. Dated 22-6-1974 and the memorandum dated 13-10-1975 were challenged by the petitioners before the High Court through 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 vide order dated 6-2-1980:-- "(1) Petitioners' 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."
3. On remand the then Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 23-5-1982 held that as per Land Grant Policy the 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 granteg to them. He confirmed the view taken by the Colonization Officer that the petitioners were not entitled to additional area as being deficit. The aforesaid order was again challenged in C.P. No,D-533 on 1982, which was decided on 6-11-1989 remanding the case to the Member, Board of Revenue to decide the following issues: "(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 respotidents Paryal son of Haji and Ariz Muhammed to the 16 acres of lands allegedly in their possession as this question had not been adverted to by the Member, Board of Revenue?" The learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 9-1-1982 answered Point No,1 in favour of the petitioners and Point No,2 in favour of Paryal and Ariz Muhammad. During the hearing of the matter, an application was submitted before the Member, Board of Revenue on behalf of Mevo, Hassan, Imdad Ali, Abdul Razak and others so that they may be joined as party to the proceedings.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, their prayer was rejected on the sole ground that the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue for determination of only two questions mentioned hereinabove by the High Court. After a couple of months Hassan, Abdul Razak and Imdad Ali, respondents Nos.4 to 6 herein, preferred a petition under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, for review of the order dated 9-1-1992, mainly on the ground that deficiency in grant of Mangla Dam affectees could not be made good, out of the area reserved for Haries and small Khatedars; that the Board of Revenue also did not consider the important documentary evidence, which was brought on record, with the result that the patent error appeared to have been committed while passing the order. During the hearing of the review petition, the Member, Board of Revenue called for a report from Colonization Officer with regard to aforesaid 24 acres of land claimed by the contesting respondents. The Colonization Officer inspected the site on 15-10-1992 in presence of the parties, got prepared a sketch alongwith a note thereon and submitted his report.
The Member, Board of Revenue after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties was persuaded to review his earlier order to the extent of allowing the prayer of the respondents to be impleaded as party to the proceedings. He further 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. The Member, Board of Revenue taking into consideration documentary evidence mentioning their cultivating possession over an area of 24 acres of lands expressed his view that such evidence could not be brushed aside and held that they were entitled to retain that area in their possession which shall not be disturbed.
4. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners challenged the vires of the order dated 3-12-1992 through C.P.No, D-720 of 1992, which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 17-11-1999. Hence this petition.
5. Sardar Asmatullah Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the order of the Board of Revenue darted 3-12-1992 was a nullity in the eye of law, which has caused injustice to the petitioners; that grant of land in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 6 by the Board of Revenue is also not sustainable under the law; that the High Court has not considered the case in its proper perspective and that the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
In support of his contentions, he has relied upon Aminullah and 2 others v. Qalandar Khan and 4 others (1993 SCM R 2307) and Nasim Ahmed Kharal v. Board of Revenue, Sindh (1979 CLC 609).
6. Mr. Abdul Haleem Pirzada,, leanred Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.4 to 6 has vehemently controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgment. He contended that the learned High Court keeping in view the factual back-ground of the case rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioners.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined the material available on record. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable an& the case-law cited by him does not support the facts of the instant petition. According to the land grant policy, the land is granted under certain schemes, such as oustees of Mangla Dam, as in this case, whereas some areas are reserved for small Khatadars, Harris and Muhagdars. The contesting respondents claimed the land to be in their cultivating possession as Harris, small Khatedars, which was reserved for them by the Government.
Inadvertently, their land was wrongly allotted to the petitioners, when such fact was brought to the notice of the Member, Board of Revenue and after verification of the Colonization Officer by, visiting the site in presence of the parties, the Member, Board of Revenue while exercising the powers under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 reviewed his earlier order. The learned High Court did consider the case in its proper perspective and with sound and cogent reasons dismissed the petition. It would be advantageous to refer to the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "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 oh 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."
8. For the foregoing facts and reasons, we do not find jurisdictional error, material illegality or non- reading or misreading of the documentary evidence in the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the question of public importance, as envisaged under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is not involved in this petition.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed alongwith the listed application and leave to appeal is declined.