JUDGMENT CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. -- Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner purchased the land measuring 19 marlas bearing Khasra No. 1096/829, Khata No. 166/829 from late Abdul Aziz respondent No. 1, through registered sale-deed dated 28.8.1975. The land in question is situated in village Kharrk. The mutation No. 7114 was also-sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Revenue Officer on 4.4.1990. Respondent No. 4 (LDA) acquired the land situated in the aforesaid Khasra No. Including the land in question for execution its Housing Scheme known as Allama Iqbal Town. The possession of the land in question including the other land situated in the said Khasra, was handed over to respondent No. 4 by the competent authority on 13.1 1.1975. The award was also announced on 12:2.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector mentioned the name of owner of the land in the list in the award whose land had been acquired The Land Acquisition Collector mentioned the name of respondent No. In the list of land-owners instead of the petitioner.
The petitioner being aggrieved filed various applications before respondent No. 1 for correction of award, exemption/compention of the land in question. Finally, the Land Acquisition Collector forwarded the reference to respondent No. '5 u/S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine the title of the petitioner and his predecessor. Respondent No. 1 died on 20.3.1996. The legal heirs of respondent No. 1 submitted their written statement in the aforesaid reference before respondent No. 5, and accepted the claim of the petitioner in their written statement. Respondent No. 4 also submitted the written statement. Respondent No. 5 dismissed the reference vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.2001. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 was erred in law to dismiss the reference of the petitioner without applying his independent mind. The legal heirs of respondent No. 1 admitted the claim of the petitioner in their written statement to the extent that their father had sold the land in question to the petitioner for consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and also admitted in their written statement that their father had never received any compensation from respondent No. 4 in the terms of award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12.2.1975.
He further submits that respondent No. 5 was erred in law to decide the reference against the petitioner. The judgment of respondent No. 5 is contradictory in nature. He further submits that Ex.A/4 Farhat Chahat clearly shows that the petitioner is a vendee of land in question from respondent No. 1. The contents of Farhat Chahat was corroborated by the statement of AW-1 Akbar AN Patwari. The learned counsel of respondent No. 4 was granted opportunity to cross-examine him but counsel of respondent No. 4 did not avail this opportunity. This fact was not considered in true perspective by respondent No. 1 in its judgment. He further urged that respondent No. 5 decided the reference against the petitioner by mis-reading and non-reading of evidence on record and did not consider the statement of. RW-1 Muhammad Ameen. He further submits that respondent No. 5 was erred in law to discard the material facts of registered sale-deed dated 28.8.1975 and aforesaid mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Revenue Officer on 4.4.1990, without any cogent reason. He summed-up his arguments that respondent No. 5 decided the case on surmises and conjectures and discarded the documentary evidence without any justification.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that Farhat Chahat Ex.A/1 reveals that the land measuring 3 kanal, 19 marlas bearing Khasra No. 1096/829 was owned by Nazir Ahmad. The original owner had transferred the aforesaid land in favour of Hassan Din, etc. Vide Mutation No. 828 which was attested by the Revenue Officer in favour of Hassan Din, etc. On 19.11.1959. The aforesaid Farhat Chahat further reveals that the aforesaid Hassan Din, etc. Had sold the land in favour of different person including Hafiz-ul-Hassan, Mst. Riffat Begum, Abdul Aleem Khan, Karim Din, Habib-ul- Hassan and Firdaus Muhammad except with exception of one entry. He further submits that other entries also show that the aforesaid Hassan Din, etc. Had sold the land in excess of their shares in favour of Ibrahim Rashid, Faiz Ali Khan and Nawab Din. He further submits that it appears subsequently, land was transferred back to their names. He further submits that none of the documents show that original owner Nazir Ahmad or his alienness namely Hassan Din, etc. Had sold any land to Abdul Aziz respondent No. 1 from whom, the petitioner had purchased the land in question measuring 19 marlas. He summed-up his arguments that respondent No. 5 had decided the case after applying his independent mind after proper appreciation of evidence on record against the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that the petitioner has placed on record certain documents qua other reference in which the name of Abdul Aziz has mentioned, therefore, judgment of respondent No. 5 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as respondent No. 5 passed the impugned judgment and decree by mis-reading and non-reading of the record.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the material facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties. (1) Original owner of the land in question, was Nazir Ahmad who sold the land in question to Hassan Din, etc. Vide Mutation No. 828 attested on 19.11.1959 and (2)
Hassan Din, etc. Sold the land to the aforesaid Hafiz-ul-Hassan and Farhat Begum, etc. Hassan Din, etc. Also sold the land in excess of their shares in favour of aforesaid Jalees Ahmad, etc. The documentary evidence did not mention that Nazir Ahmad or his alienee mentioned above had sold any land to Abdul Aziz. The petitioner purchased the land from Abdul Aziz vide registered sale- deed dated 28.8.1975. Mutation was also sanctteffed in favour of the petitioner on 4.4.1990.
Respondent No. 4 acquired the land in question for execution its Housing Scheme known as Allama Iqbal Town Scheme. The possession was also handed over to respondent No. 4 by the competent authority on 13.11.1975. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 12.2.1975 alongwith list of owners of the land. The list mentioned the name of respondent No. 5 instead of the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Collector, who forwarded the reference to respondent No. 5 on 13.11.1999. Respondent No. 5 dismissed the reference on 3.9.2001.
The petitioner filed this writ petition on 24.11.2001. Office raised following objections on 13.11.2001 with the direction to the petitioner to remove the office objections within 7 days:--
(i) Uncertified and dim copies to be replaced with bright handwritten/typed ones.
(ii) Detail of Annexure mentioned in the Index be given i. e. Original, certified or un-certified.
(i.e) Photostat of the N.I.C, of the petitioner to be filed.
The petitioner removed the aforesaid objections and refiled the writ petition which was fixed before this Court on 27.12.2001 and respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments.
7. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned judgment to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "The statement of RW-1 Muhammad Amin Qanoongo being contradictory of the entries contained in Fard Chhant Ex.A/l cannot be safely relied upon. Copy of Registered Sale-Deed Ex.A/3 is to the effect that Abdul Aziz had alienated the land in favour of the petitioner. As discussed earlier, there is nothing on record to prove that Abdul Aziz was lawful owner of the land in dispute and as such this sale-deed cannot be relied upon for holding that the petitioner is a lawful owner of the land in dispute. Mutation entries Ex.A/4 is to the effect that Nazir Ahmad had alienated the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner. As discussed earlier, after having sold his entire land to Hassan Din, etc .Vide Mutation No. 828, dated 19.11J 959 Nazir Ahmad was left with no in sale-able interest in the land in dispute and as such the mutation entry Ex.A/4 also cannot be pressed into service. The petitioner having failed to establish that he had purchased the land in dispute from its lawful owner, this reference is answered in the negative and the petitioner cannot be held entitled to its compensation."
The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that respondent No. 5 passed the impugned judgment after applying his independent mind after proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring on record any sufficient material to prove that Abdul Aziz had purchased the land in question from the original owner Nazir Ahmad or his alienness namely Hassan Din, etc. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has to fall in the foot print of Abdul Aziz, in case Abdu! Aziz is owner of the land in question, then sale-deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner is a valid in the eyes of law. In case, late Abdul Aziz was hot owner of the land in question, then sale- deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner has no sanctity in the eyes of law as mentioned above. The petitioner failed $o bring on record any documentary evidence to prove that Abdul Aziz had purchased the land in question from the original owner Nazir Ahmad, or from persons to whom he had sold the land in question. The petitioner failed to connect late Abdul Aziz as owner of the land in question in any capacity, therefore, respondent No. 5 was justified to non-suit the petitioner, It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its on findings in place of findings of the Tribunal below as per principle land down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mussadaq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600), law laid down by the Honorables Supreme Court in Qaiser Shafi-Ullah's case (1994 SCM R 859). Coupled with the fact that the petitioner filed this writ petition against the judgment of respondent No. 5 dated 3.9.2001 on 24.11.2001, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of laches as per principle laid down by the Honorables Supreme Court in the following judgment:- "Khiali Khan Vs. Haji Nazir and 4 others" (PLD 1997 S.C. 304)
"Federation of Pakistan Vs. H. Muhammad Saif- Ullah, etc." (PLD 1989 S.C. 166)
The award was announced on 12.2.1975. Reference was made by the Land Acquisition Collector to respondent No. 5 on 13.11.1999, this fact brings the case of the petitioner in the area that the petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands, It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is a discretionary in character. Keeping in view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Honorables Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Alt's case (PLD 1973 S.C. 236).
In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.