GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER, (JUDICIAL-III), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE

ORDER

' I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:--

(i) Writ Petition No,8786 of 2005, (ii) Writ Petition No,8787 of 2005, (iii) Writ Petition No,8788 of 2005.

2. The brief facts out of which aforesaid writ petitions arise are that allegedly the competent authority allotted the land in question to father and son in each case and thereafter, the competent authority cancelled the lots in question from the name of petitioners (sons). The petitioners being aggrieved submitted review petition before the. Member, Board of Revenue who accepted the revision petition to the extent of father vide order, dated 3-11-1994 and did not accept the review petition with regard to sons. The petitioners being aggrieved filed various review petitions consisting of 5 times, which were dismissed by the Member of Board of Revenue on each and every time. The 5th review petition was dismissed by different orders by Member, Board of Revenue vide impugned order, dated 10-3-2005. Hence, the present writ petitions.

3. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the Member, Board of Revenue erred in law to cancel the lots merely basing upon definition of family as the same were secured by the petitioners and their fathers separately. In fact, the petitioners and their fathers being independent families, were rightly allotted the land in question, therefore, they are entitled to allot the lots in question. This question is decided by the Honourable Supreme Court by interpreting the Notification in the year 2003 in the following judgments:-- ' Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue v. Taj Muhammad 2003 SCM R 1349 and Aziz Din v. Member, Board of Revenue 2003 SCMR 1985.

4. The learned Law Officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that these writ petitions are not maintainable.

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

6. It is admitted fact that the matter has been finally concluded by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order, dated 3-11-1994. It is no doubt about it that the petitioners have filed various review petitions before the Member, Board of Revenue, being aggrieved by his order, dated 3-11-1994.

Thereafter, last and 5th review petitions filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Member Board of Revenue vide order, A dated 10-3-2005. It is admitted position that there is no provision under the law to file second review petition before the Member Board of Revenue, therefore, order dated 3-11-1994 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, is final between the parties. The petitioners have not challenged the same well in time, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of laches, laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji M. Saif-ullah Khan and others PLD 1989 SC 166 and Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others PLD 1997 SC 304.

It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character. The petitioners have not attached a single review petition filed by the petitioners before the Member, Board of Revenue to show that the petitioners have taken ground that policy has been interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. This fact brings the case of the petitioners in the area that the B petitioners have concealed the material facts from this Court. It is also settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must come to the Court with clean hands.

The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands by not attaching review petitions with these writ petitions, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioners, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others 1969 SCM R 141 and Principal, K.E.M. College v. Ghulam Mustafa and others 1983 SCM R 196.

7. It is admitted fact that the matter has been finally concluded by the Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 3-11-1994, therefore, these Constitutional petitions are not maintainable. Even otherwise, it is also settled proposition of law that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court has prospective effect and not retrospective effect, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Yousaf v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1968 SC 101.

In view of what has been discussed above, these Constitutional petitions have no merits and the same are dismissed.