' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that Collector concerned allotted land in the name of the petitioner measuring 13 Acres, 8 Marlas situated in Chak No.515/G.B. Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh vide order dated 10-12-1956. The allotment in the name of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled in view of the Government Instructions in the year 1971. The petitioner was allotted alternative land in Killa No.1-5 and 17-13 of Square No.1997 by the concerned Collector vide order dated 15-5-1973. The Collector received certain complaints qua the allotment in favour of the petitioner including Alam Sher complainant. On scrutiny the Collector concerned cancelled the land in question from the name of the petitioner vide order dated 5-2-1974. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) concerned who dismissed the same vide order dated 25-5-1974. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue who accepted the same vide order dated 30-7-1974. Alam Sher filed a review petition before the Member Board of Revenue who rejected the same vide order dated 19-11-1974. Alam Sher filed Writ Petition No.2218 of 1974 before this Court and the case was remanded to the Member Board of Revenue to decide the case afresh. Learned Member Board of Revenue after remand dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner vide order dated 8-8-1985.
The petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.3527 of 1985 which was dismissed by this Court vide order/judgment dated 9-3-2001. The petitioner allegedly filed petition before the HonourableSupreme Court which is pending adjudication. The petitioner filed an application to purchase the land in question from the respondent before the Member Board of Revenue on 10-7- 2001 who dismissed the same vide order dated 30-12-2002. Hence the present Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner submitted an application to purchase the land in question on the basis of the order passed by the Member Board of Revenue in similar matters in other revision petitions filed by the aggrieved parties before the Member Board of Revenue. The Member Board of Revenue dismissed the application of the petitioner merely on the ground that petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by M.B.R. On 8-8-1985 and thereafter Constitutional petition was also dismissed by this Court on 9-3-2001 and directed the petitioner to file Constitutional petition before this Court on the basis of precedents of the Board of Revenue. He further submits that Member Board of Revenue erred in law to dismiss the application of the petitioner without application of mind. He further submits that action of the respondent is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that controversy in the earlier round of litigation was relating to the allotment whereas present application is filed by the petitioner for purchasing the land in question which is strictly in accordance with law.
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional Advocate-General submits that writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted fact that revision petition was dismissed by the Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 8-8-1985 qua the allotment of land in question in favour of the petitioner and Constitutional petition was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9-3-2001. Therefore, application filed by the petitioner before the Member Board of Revenue is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in 'Asif Jan Siddiqui's case (PLD 1983 SC 46) and Abdul Majeed's case (PLD 1982 SC 146). The basic rights over the land by the petitioner is no more in the field in view of order of Member Board of Revenue dated 8-8-1985 and judgment of this Court dated 9-3-2001 in Writ Petition No.3527 of 1985. The judgment of this Court is final between the parties till the same is not set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court on the well known principle of constructive resjudicata as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh's case (PLD 1987 SC 145).
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has nt5 merit and the same is dismissed.
' C.M. No.611 of 2003 ' This is an application to implead the applicants mentioned in the title under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C.
As the main writ petition has been finally decided, therefore this application has become infructuous. Disposed of accordingly.
' C.M. No.101I-M of 2004 ' C.M. No.1012-M of 2004 ' As the main writ petition has been finally decided, therefore, these applications have become infructuous. Disposed of accordingly.