2006 PLP 608 (CLC)

CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.

The petitioners have challenged the vires of the orders of respondents Nos.6 to 8 dated 4-1-2001, 9-10-2003 and 22-10-2004 respectively, through this constitutional petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted application on 18-9-1998 before the respondent No.6 for correction of entries of Register Girdawari. The contents of the application reveal that the petitioners' father namely Jamal Khan son of Deedar Bakhsh was owner of the land in question along with other land. The original owner died. Abdul Rashid respondent No.5 and father of respondents Nos.1 to 4 namely Abdul Rehman in connivance with the Patwari Halqa got manipulated the entries in respect of Khasra No.6335 in the Register Girdawari in their favour in harvest Kharif, 1975. These entries are worth perusal in the said register, which clearly show interpolation. The field staff has given report in favour of the petitioners. In spite of that the Deputy Commissioner/Collector dismissed the application on 4-10-2001. The petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal in the Court of Executive District Officer (Revenue), who also dismissed the same vide order dated 9-10-2003. Thereafter, the-petitioners filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue, who also dismissed the same vide impugned order, dated 22-10-2004, hence present petition.

3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that all the authorities below non-suited the petitioners as the matter has been finally decided upto the apex Court under the Land Reforms Regulation, which is not correct approach; therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the impugned orders are passed by the respondents without application of mind and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Punjab Land Reforms Act, Land Manual and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate-General entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that constitutional petition is not maintainable.

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

6. It is admitted fact that the matter has been finalized upto the apex Court in the side of land reforms in which the petitioners or their father did not challenge the Jamabandies in question. It is settled principle of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution as per law laid down in Asif fah Siddiqi v. A Government of Sindh PLD 1983 SC 46 and Abdul Majid and others v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others PLD 1982 SC

146. In case the respondents have passed the orders in violation of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court then in terms of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court the respondents would have committed contempt of the apex Court; therefore, the impugned order is valid as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh through L.Rs. and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC

145. It is also settled principle of law that matter has been finalized upto the apex Court, therefore, authorities below were justified not to reopen the matter on the well-known principle of past and closed transactions as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Noor Din's case PLD 1973 SC

17. It is also admitted fact that all the authorities below have concurrently decided against the petitioners; therefore, constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Khuda Bukhsh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCMR 279; Muhammad Sharif and another v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail and others PLD 1981 SC 246 and Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 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 the findings of the Tribunals below as per law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and another v. M. Massadaq Naseem Sindhoo PLD 1973 Lah. 600 and Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others PLD 1964 SC

260. In view of what has been discussed above, this constitutional petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-43/L Petition dismissed.