2002 PLP 1041 (MLD)

Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondents. This single order shall dispose of the present Writ Petition No.8738 of 1993 as well as the connected Writ Petition No.8740 of 1993, as they are inter-related and between the same parties.

2. Through the institution of this Constitutional petition, the petitioners, claiming to be successors-in-interest of one Sardar, have called in question order, dated 20-7-1993 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Judicial-I), whereby the learned Member rejected the revision petition, filed by the petitioners.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that one Sardar, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, on 9-1-1976, filed a suit for pre-emption, against the respondents, regarding land elaborately described in the petition before the Collector, Wazirabad, claiming superior right of pre-emption as against the vendees. The said Sardar also sought correction of Khasra Girdawari in his favour in respect of disputed Khasra numbers. The respondents contested the suit by way of filing written statement culminating to the framing of the issues and the learned Collector, after recording the evidence of the parties, both oral as well as documentary and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, decreed the suit in favour of Sardar, in respect of entire suit land vide judgment and decree, dated 6-1-1982. However, the decree was passed in respect of only 32 Kanals of land, and the land which was underneath the Sem Nallah, was left out as the same was stated to be acquired. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondents filed an appeal, which was partly accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, vide judgment and decree dated 20-5-1985, whereby the learned Appellate Court modified the decree of the learned trial Court to the extent that decree in respect of Khasra Nos. 16 and 24 was upheld in other case, an order passed by District Judge as a revisional Court in civil litigation can be challenged through filing of the Constitutional petition.

7. In the above perspective, when the learned counsel was asked to show how the impugned order dated 20-7-1993 is void or without jurisdiction, the learned counsel could not point out any jurisdictional error in the impugned order or to know how the same is void or without jurisdiction.

8. I have also minutely perused the order dated 20-7-1993, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge and I am of the considered view that the said order is neither void nor without jurisdiction and the same has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge having jurisdiction in the matter.

9. Even otherwise, from the perusal of the record as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the disputed questions of fact are involved in this case, on p, which the finding has been rendered by both the Courts below who have got the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. This Court cannot re-appraise the evidence on record in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction which has been properly appreciated by the learned Additional Commissioner as well as the learned Member, Board of Revenue. It has been held in Umar Hayat Khan v. Inayat Ullah Butt and others (1994 SCMR 572) that High Court would not decide the questions of fact, particularly when a finding in that behalf had been rendered by Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. Respectfully, following the dictum laid down in the aforesaid case, I am of the considered view that the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the disputed questions of fact which has already been properly taken care of by both the Courts below, orders have been passed by both the Courts below by taking into consideration oral as well as documentary evidence, thus, both the impugned orders are just, legal and unexceptionable and do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.

10. In view of the above reasons and conclusions, seeing from any angle, both the writ petitions are incompetent and not maintainable under the law, the same are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G-163/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.