' The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the record of the village in question is in the custody of respondent No.3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 directed him to return the record of the village in question, but respondent No.3 did not return the same to the aforesaid respondents. The petitioner also submitted an application before respondent No.3 to return the record of the village in question to the Revenue Authority on the- basis of order of Secretary Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 30-3-2002. Respondent No.3 did not decide the application of the petitioner till date and did not return the record in-question to respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4.
2. The learned law officer entered appearance on Court's call, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
4. The petitioner has claimed to return the record of the village in-question from the Consolidation Office-respondent No.3 on the basis of order of the Secretary Consolidation vide order dated 30-3- 2002, wherein it is mentioned so far as consolidation of holding is concerned, it was decided that no new village should be taken up for consolidation for ten years and where consolidation operation had already been started, the consolidation work must be finalized in a transparent manner within a period of two years. In case, contents of the writ petition and order of the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 30-3-2002 are put in juxtaposition, then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of the disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of fact as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Muhammad Younas Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P." 1993 SCMR 618. It is also settled principle of law that principles of C.P.C. Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings, as per principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Hussain Bakhsh's case" PLD 1970 SC
1. The petitioner has not impleaded other co-villagers, who would be aggrieved by the order of this Court, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Karachi High Court in "Teoomal v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Sanghar and another" PLD 1981 Karachi 349 and "M. Ramiz-ul-Haq and others v. The Secretary Government of Punjab and others" PLD 1992 SC 221. The. Petitioner has filed this writ petition in the representative capacity without fulfilling the mandatory provisions prescribed by the Legislature in its wisdom under Order 1, rule 8, C.P.C., therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in "Anjuman Arain Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and 5 others" PLD 1973 Lahore 500. Even otherwise, the petitioner has more than one alternative remedies to approach the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore or the Member, Board of Revenue for redressal of his grievance, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazalzada Civil Judge and others" PLD 1996 SC 246.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.