2005 PLP 1578 (YLR)

The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondents qua the land in question. The bid of the petitioner was highest, which was sent by the competent authority to the Deputy Commissioner for approval. The Deputy Commissioner did not approve the same as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application for the grant of proprietary rights before respondent No.3, but respondent No.3 failed to grant the proprietary rights to the petitioner, which is not valid in the eye of law, which is also upheld by respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively, in the impugned orders. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is penalized by inaction of public functionaries; therefore, the impugned orders are not valid as the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings held by the respondents. The bid of the petitioner was highest, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner by the competent authority for approval of the same, but the Deputy Commissioner did not approve the same. The petitioner is admittedly in possession of land in question and he is also landlord, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of proprietary rights on the basis of policy issued by the respondents in the years 1998 and 2001, but his fact was not considered by the Tribunals below.

3. The learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has filed an application for the grant of proprietary rights before respondent No.3 on the basis of participation in the auction proceedings held by the respondents, which was not approved by the respondents as is evident from the orders of Tribunal below, therefore, the petitioner does not accrue any vested right on the basis of mere participating in the auction proceedings held by the respondents unless and until, the same is approved by the competent authority. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:

Meraj Din v. Noor Muhammad and 3 others 1970 SCMR 542; Munshi Muhammad and others v. Faizanul Haq and others 1971 SCMR 533; Rehmat Ali and others v. Revenue Board and others 1973 SCMR 342; Babu Pervez Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1974 SCMR 337 and Akbar Ali and another v. The State PLD 1960 (W.P.) Lah.

822. It is the duty and obligation of petitioner to show that orders of Tribunals below are in violation of rules and regulations of respondents qua maintainability of the Constitutional petition but the petitioner has failed to show that the impugned orders were passed in violation of rules and regulations of the respondents, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Meer's case 1984 SCMR

433. It is also admitted fact that all the tribunals below have decided the case against the petitioner. It is also settled principle of law that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the concurrent findings of Tribunals below, as per principle law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Khuda Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1974 SCMR 279; Muhammad Sharif and others v. Muhammad Afzal and others PLD 1981 SC 246; Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan Ahmad and others PLD 1981 SC

522. It is also settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of the Tribunals below while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution, as per principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Board of I&SE. Lahore v. M. Musaddaq Naseem PLD 1973 Lah. 600; Syed Azmat Ali Shah v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1964 SC

260. It is also settled principle of law that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner, as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236; Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Additional Commissioner and others 1998 SCMR 1462. It is also settled principle of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. The contention of learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for the proprietary rights on the basis of policy issued by the respondents in the years 1998 and 2001, is not sustainable in the eye of law as the petitioner has not alleged such plea in the memorandum of the revision petition, therefore, the petitioner's counsel is not within his right to raise new plea, which was not before the Tribunals below, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Murad Begum and others v. Muhammad Rafique and others PLD 1974 SC

322. In view of what has been discussed above, the Constitutional petition has no merits, as I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and also I do not want to interfere in the matter exercised by the Tribunals below, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-902/L Petition dismissed.