1988 PLP 1768 (CLC)

Hamid Malik for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Naeem for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1987. The petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned judgments dated 15‑1‑1985 passed by respondent No.2 and 8‑4‑1985, passed by respondent No.3 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption of the land measuring 33 Kanals 4 Marlas situate in Mohallah Arazi Yaqub, Sialkot City. The suit was contested by the respondent No.l by filing written statement and the learned trial Court framed as many as six issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The learned Assistant Commissioner/ Collector vide his judgment dated 24‑6‑1984 decreed the suit of the petitioner. Under issue No.l, the learned Collector held that the transaction in question was in fact sale and had been mentioned as an exchange with a view to forestall a suit for pre‑emption. Respondent No.l challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Collector by filing an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, which was heard and accepted by him. He dismissed the suit filed by the present petitioner. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also heard and dismissed by the learned Member Board of Revenue vide his order dated 8‑4‑1985.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the sole point that the finding of fact given by the learned Collector in the case regarding the nature of transaction has been upset by the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member Board of Revenue without assigning any reason. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that valid reasons have been given by the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member Board of Revenue. He stated that the petition suffers from laches and delay and no explanation has been given by the petitioner. He stated that it has been determined by the competent forum that the transaction in question is exchange and not a sale.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. There is no substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons have been given by the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member Board of Revenue. I find that the detailed judgments have been given by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and the learned Member Board of Revenue. This being so there is a finding of fact having been given by the competent Revenue Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity muchless the jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgments and decrees. I do not find any legal justification to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. This being so the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H . B. T. /M‑719/L Petition dismissed.