' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that predecesso r-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2-A to 2-I, purchased land measurin g 43 Kanals, 16 Marlas from respondent No,3. The land in question is situated in village Kalu Bajwa, Tehsil Pasrur , District Sialkot. The predecesso r-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2-A to 2-I, purchased the said land vide registered sale-deed dated 20-7-1974, mutation was also sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on the basis of the aforesaid registered sale-deed on 13-12-1974. Petitioner submitted complaint to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector on the ground that original owner Muhammad Hussain respondent No,3 was owner of 50 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land in the said village. The petitioner had also purchased land in the said village through Mutation No,84. The contents of the application of the petitioner reveal that Muhammad Hussain had sold his land to the predecessor -in-interest of the respondents Nos.2-A to 2-I in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No,1 15 and did not sell the whole land in the village and had sold the part thereof. The Deputy Commis sioner accepted the application of the petitioner vide order , dated 29-9-1987 after thorough inquiry . Predecesso r-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2-A to 2-I filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Gujranwala who dismissed the same vide order dated 30-8-1989. The predecessor -ininterest of respondents Nos.2-A to 2-1 filed revision petition before the Member , Board of Revenue, who accepted the same vide order 8-5-2001 hence the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Member , Board of Revenue has very limited jurisdiction in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, he was erred in law to disturb the findings of facts of the tribunals below .
He further urges that order of the learn ed Member , Board of Revenue is the result of misreading and non- reading of the, record. Respondent No,3 is owner of the land in the village in question in two Khatas as is evident from the Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1980 attached with the writ petition as Annexure D/3 which reveals that respondent No,3 original owner has land measuring 43 Kanals, 10 Marlas and 6 Kanals, 9- 1/2 Marlas alongwith his mother , who is also owner of land measuring 6 Kanals and 8-1/2 Marlas. He further urged that same position is depicted from Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1984 attached with the writ petition as Annexure D/4. He further urges that learned Member , Board of Revenue was erred in law to rely upon the Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1972 which reveals that Muhammad Hussain son of Allah Ditta is owner of the land in question. He further submits that name of the father of respondent No,3 is wrongly mentioned in the Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1972. He further urges that learned Member , Board of Revenue was erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner that petitioner is not an aggrieved person. He further submits that once the material irregularity was pointed out by any person then it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to take action and set aside the, void order . Even otherwise the petitioner is owner in the village, therefore, petitioner is an aggrieved person. He further submits that petitioner filed an application before the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court in which the provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No,1 15 was declared as unIslamic. This fact was not considered by the learned Member , Board of Revenue in true prospects in the impugned order . He simply non-suited the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had purchased the land in the village subsequent to the predecessor -in-interest of respondents Nos.2- A to 2-I.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that at the relevant time, petitioner was not owner of the land in the village, therefore, learned Member , Board of Revenue was justified to accept the revision petition filed by the predecessor -in-interest of respondents Nos.2-A to 2-I. He further urges that provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No,1 15 was declared un-Islamic and both the tribunals below i,e, Collect& and Additional Commissioner were erred in law to accept the application of the petitioner . He further submits that Deputy Commissioner has no authority , whatsoever , to set aside the mutation on the basis of the violation of the Martial Law Regulation No,1 15 of 1972. The competent Authority to review the mutation is the authority under the provisions of the Martial Law Regulation No,1 15 of 1972. He further submits that substantial justice has been done between the parties, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General, submits that writ petition is not maintainable.
4. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The learned Member , Board of Revenue have passed the impugned order after proper appreciation of the evidence on record and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Musaadaq's case PLD 1973 Lah.600. It is admitted fact that predecessor -in-interest of respondents Nos.2-A to 2-1, purchased the land in question vide sale-deed dated 20-7-1974 and Mutation No,37 was sanctioned on 13-12-1974. The petitioner filed application before the Collector on 30-3-1987. The petitioner filed the application after considerable delay . It is pertinent to mention here that the Register Haqdaran Zameen attached by the petitioner with the writ petition were not of the year 1974, there fore, the same have no relevancy to resolve the present controversy . It is now well-settled law that neither a Civil Court nor the Revenue Officer would be having jurisdiction to declare a transaction to be violative of provision of Martial Law Regulation No,1 15. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:-- ' Muhammad Yaqoob and another v. Shah Nawaz and 2 others 2002 CLC 84, Mst. Aisha Bibi v. Nazir Ahmad and 10 others 1994 SCMR 1935 , Mst. Hajiani and others v. West Pakistan Land Commissioner and others PLD 1966 SC 1 14.
' The impugned order reveals that substantial justice has been done therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Honour able Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 .
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits, and the same is dismissed.