' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-1- 2002 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Heard Ch. Hafeez Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly contended that the entire proceedings concerning consolidation which culminated in confirmation of scheme were ab initio void as status quo order dated 6-12-1994 passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, was operative and no consolidation could have been made. It is also contended that the entire record has not been examined with due deliberation causing serious prejudice to the petitioners.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and the rules made thereunder.
The judgment impugned has been perused carefully. The prime contention of Ch. HafeezAhmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appears to be fallacious as the status quo order was passed on 6-12-1994 while the permission for approval of consolidation scheme after completion of all the formalities was given on 6-12-1993 and hence the question of applicability of said status quo order with retrospective effect does not arise. It is worth-mentioning that all the right holders were heard on 30-6-1993 and no objection whatsoever was made concerning consolidation proceedings. The petitioners had participated voluntarily and accepted Tarika-e-Taqseem by affixing their thumb- impressions. The writ petition was filed on 19-9-1996 and no reason for inordinate delay could be pointed out. The learned counsel was unable to furnish any plausible justification that as to why the forums available in the revenue hierarchy were not approached regarding the alleged irregularities or infirmities made during the process of re-consolidation. The provisions as contained in section 11 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, reproduced hereinbelow are capable enough to meet all sorts of such eventualities which were never invoked:-- "Section 11. Appeal.---(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Consolidation Officer confirming the scheme may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Collector.
(2) A second appeal from the order of the Collector passed on anappeal under subsection (1) shall lie to the Commissioner within sixty days from the date of the order: provided that when the order of the Consolidation Officer is confirmed on appeal by the Collector, no second appeal shall lie.
(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector made under subsection (4) of section 10 confirming, rejecting or modifying a scheme of consolidation submitted to him by the Consolidation Officer may within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner.
(4) In questions of the admission of, and the computation of the period for, an appeal from the order under this Ordinance, the limitation therefor, shall be governed by the Limitation Act, 1908.
4. We are of the considered opinion that omission or error can be rectified by approaching the quarters concerned available in the revenue hierarchy and even otherwise reconsolidation depends upon the wishes of the majority subject to all legal exceptions for which the proper forum can be approached.
' In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.