' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the land measuring 258 Kanals, 6 Marlas, 226 Kanals, 15 Marlas and 335 Kanals, 6 Marlas situated in Village Qilla Sardar Jawahar Singh and Mauza Chakori, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat, was allotted to the petitioners respectively as is evident from the Annexures A, B and C, being refugees of Jammu and Kashmir, on temporary basis. This fact was also mentioned in the Jamabandi for the years 1968-1969 and 1971-72. The displaced persons Settlement laws were repealed in the year 1974. The petitioners filed an application under the repealed Act before the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs for grant of proprietary rights of the land in question. The land in question was allegedly allotted in the name of the petitioneRs, The Tehsildar concerned directed the petitioners to deposit the price of the land in question in terms of the repealed laws. The petitioners deposited the price in terms of the repealed laws in obedience of the allegedly allotment order in favour of the petitioners to the respondents.
Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the allegedly allotment order in the year 1981 which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-S of the writ petition. The rival group of the petitioners submitted an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Mandi Baha- ud-Din for the review of the aforesaid mutation which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, who forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, who accepted the same and reviewed the aforesaid mutation vide order dated 20-3-1983. The petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the Commissioner Revenue, Gujranwala Division Gujranwala, who dismissed the same vide order dated 22-2-1987. The petitioners being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue who also dismissed the same vide order dated 16-8-1992, hence, the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that Member, Board of Revenue countersigned the order of the Commissioner Revenue as is evident from the para. 3 of the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. He further submits that learned Member, Board of Revenue passed the order against the petitioners without adverting to the statement of Nisar Ahmad, Assistant Admn. Officer. He further submits that respondents have 'no lawful authority to cancel the land of the petitioners which was allotted to the petitioners by the competent authority as no application was pending against the petitioners after the repeal of the evacuee laws. The respondents have no lawful authority to cancel the land from the name of the petitioners in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:--
(1) Sher Afzal Khan v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others 1984 SCM R 228.
(2) Muhammad Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala 1988 SCM R 1937.
(3) Kh. Bashir Ahmad v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others 1991 SCM R 1604.
(4) Muhammad Din and others v. Ghulam Muhammad Naseem Sindhu and others PLD 1991 SC 1.
(5) Syed Wajih-ul-Hassan Zaidi v. Government of Punjab and others 1997 SCM R 1901.
(6) Ghafoor Bukhsh v. Haji Muhammad Sultan and others 2001 SCM R 398.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, submits that petitioners are only entitled under the scheme for allotment of the land in their favour as maintenance measuring 12 acres or 18 acres whereas the petitioners fraudulently got allotted more land with the connivance of the staff of the Ministry of the A.J.& K. He further submits that no valid order was passed by the Ministry in favour of the petitioners as the petitioners failed to place on record any valid order passed by the Ministry in favour of the petitioners after repeal of the evacuee laws. He further submits that petitioners deposited the price of the land in question in connivance with the Revenue.Staff i,e, Tehsildar. He further submits that criminal case also registered against the petitioners and the Revenue Staff. He further submits that all the tribunals below have given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners and the writ petition is not maintainable. He summed up his arguments that all the petitioners belong to one family, therefore, petitioners allegedly secured the allotment order in their favour by fraudulent manner and misappropriation, therefore, impugned orders are valid in the eyes of law.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal, submits that petitioners and Revenue Staff are acquitted in the criminal case. He further submits that respondents have no lawful authority to cancel the land in question from the name of the petitioners at the time of reviewing the mutation in question. He further submits that land in question is situated at the river bed and nobody was interested to get the land in question, therefore, the land in question was allotted to the petitioners by the competent authority.
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 admitted fact that petitioners failed to place on record any order passed by the competent authority in favour of the petitioners after the repeal of the evacuee laws as alleged by the petitioners, coupled with the fact that petitioners are only entitled for allotment of the land in question measuring 18 acres or 12 acres therefore, these facts bring the case of the petitioners in the area that the petitioners do 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 petitioners as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's, case PLD 1973 SC 236. It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Courts below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Musaddaq's case PLD 1973 Lah. 600 and by the Honourable Supreme Court in Qaisar Shafiq Ullah's case 1994 SCM R 859. It is also settled principle of law that writ petition is not maintainable' against the concurrent findings of fact arrived by the tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Khuda Bukhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCM R 279. It is pertinent to mention here that the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings can continue side by side as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in The D.I.- G. Of Police, Lahore v. Anis-Ur-Rehman Khan PLD 1985 SC 134 and Talib Husain's case 1993 SCM R 2177.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.