' Mauza Wahi Salamat Rai, Tehsil and District Lodhran befell into the consolidation operation and the scheme of the Mauza was confirmed on 30-9-1992. An appeal was filed by respondent No,5 of the instant writ petition (Warts Ali Khan), in the Court of learned Collector/Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), which was accepted on 30-8-1995 and Killa No,20 (8 Kanals) of Square No,65, which was located in the centre of the lands of respondent No,5, and was owned by the petitioners, was given over to respondent No,5, while land of Killa No,8 (8 Kanals) of Rectangle No,69, which was nearer to the other hands of the petitioners was allocated to them in lieu thereof by the aforesaid Collector (Consolidation). This caused annoyance to the petitioners, who filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), which was also dismissed on 10-12-1995 as he had upheld the order, dated 30-8-1995 of the learned Collector, Consolidation. It was further challenged before the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, by filing of R.O.R. No,1 of 1996 (Mst. Hajran etc v. Waris etc). After hearing both the parties, the revision was dismissed on 9-6-2004 by the aforesaid learned Member. Still dissatisfied with that order, dated 9-6-2004, passed by learned Member (Consolidation), a suit was filed in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran on 16-6-2004, which was contested by respondent No,5 by filing an application under Order VII rule 11 of the C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge accepted the application on 12-7-2004 and rejected the plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the C.P.C. Holding that the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction to interfere into the orders of the Consolidation Authorities under section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The matter did not end there. The petitioners went in appeal against that order of rejection of the plaint before the learned District Judge, Lodhran, from where they against failed to get any relief and the learned District Judge, Lodhran, confirming the order of learned Civil Judge, dismissed the appeal on 4-9-2004.
Disagreeing to that order a Civil Revision bearing No,855-D/2004 was filed in this Court, but on 22- 9-2004, after arguing the revision, the petitioners decided to withdraw it so as to file the writ petition. Hence, the instant writ petition.
2. The petitioners learned counsel has laid great stress upon the point of limitation by agitating it in this writ petition. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) could not condone the delay in the filing of the appeal before him and that the order passed by ADC (C) on 30-8-1995 was not a speaking one. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that respondent has been accommodated unfairly and the petitioners' prayer must have been upheld by the Consolidation Authorities as the petitioners were not ready to part with Killa No,20 of Rectangle No,65, the disputed land, in favour of respondent No,5.
3. Replying to the arguments, respondent No,5 has stated that respondent No,5 was posted at Kamalia as SDM and was an absentee landlord, whose signatures were got on a blank Consolidation Scheme (Wanda) by the consolidation officials, with an undertaking to consolidate the land of the petitioners and to grant them the disputed land of Killa as it was to shape the land of respondent into a compact block. As the lands owned by the respondent were surrounding Killa No,20 of Rectangle No,65, so to avoid quotidian disputes and imbroglio the aforesaid Killa was promised to be granted to the respondent for the better interest of cultivation and irrigation. But when he was transferred and checked the record to obtain the copies and to get the self- cultivation of his lands, he found that Killa No,20 of Rectangle No,65 was not allocated to him and a permanent source of brawl was perpetuated. So, he filed the appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation Officer)/Collector, who after considering all the pros and cons of the case and the grant of opportunity of hearing to both the parties, was satisfied that retention of Killa No,20 of Rectangle No,65 within the encircling lands of respondent, was not advisable and was against the letter and spirit of consolidation, so he not only condoned the delay but had granted the aforesaid Killa No,20 of Rectangle No,65 to respondent No,5. To compensate the writ petitioners, they were granted Killa No,8 of Rectangle No,69, which was nearer to other lands of the writ petitioners. Augmenting his arguments, it has been stated by the aforesaid respondent that all the consolidation officials have granted opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners, at different stages of appeal and revision, and have found that the order, dated 30-8- 1995 was correctly passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). He has further brought to the notice of this Court, that petitioners are estopped to file this writ petition, as they have accepted the 'Wanda' as ordered by ADC (C) by their own act and conduct. To support his contention, he has produced a copy of Mutation No,482, dated 22-1-2002, by which Muhammad Yagoob (petitioner No,2) had alienated 192 Kanals of lands, from his 'Wanda', which was jointly owned by him with other petitioners in favour of Muhammad Faisal and others. To amplify his contention, the aforesaid respondent has stated that the persons, who have been transferred the property, have not been arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, therefore, this writ petition due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and against adjustment of Killa Nos. In the Consolidation is not maintainable.
4. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as of respondent No,5, I have found that the learned counsel for the petitioners have taken too much exception to the point of limitation. His main grievance is that the ADC (C) could not condoned the delay and the condonation if was to be granted, it should have been with sufficient reasons. The question crops up, as to whether the condonation of delay was to be made with a full-fledged order or it could be expressed in a few words as it has been done by the learned ADC (C). The explanation, which has been given by respondent No,5 before me was also laid before learned Additional Commissioner when objection of limitation was agitated by the petitioners before him.
He had taken it into consolidation and had dealt with it into many words, through enough sentences. All these officials of consolidation hierarchy have considered this point of limitation but have not agreed with the petitioners. Learned ADC (C) had condoned the delay and it was within his jurisdiction to condone such delay. He had considered it appropriate in the circumstances of the case, which circumstances cannot be brought in dispute and now be challenged in this writ, because it falls within the domain of factual inquiry. Whether those circumstances, which were pleaded before the learned ADC(C) were sufficient to condone the delay in filing of the appeal or not, it was the discretion and jurisdiction of the aforesaid learned ADC(C) to adjudge those reasons. This exercise of discretion of learned ADC(C) was also challenged before higher tiers of the consolidation authorities, but condonation was upheld in the facts and circumstances of the case. This decision should be considered final unless there is grave and apparent injustice shown to have come into existence due to this decision. This question of limitation cannot be allowed to be canvassed at this stage again in this jurisdiction as it would involve into the inquiry of facts and interference into the jurisdiction of the officers, condoning the delay without sufficient cause being shown by the petitioners in this Court. So, question of limitation cannot be reopened in this Court for upholding the lawful order of consolidation authorities. Vide for this proposition 1986 CLC 644 (Pakistan .Refinery Ltd. v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and 2 others).
5. I have also tried my best to get the petitioners another land of respondent No,5 from Killa No,14 of Rectangle No,70, which was adjacent to the road and to other Killa No,16 of Rectangle No,70 owned and possessed by the petitioners for which respondent No,5 had agreed also. This adjustment was to prove valuable and was to work for the consolidation of the holdings of the petitioners but the petitioners are adamant to pay any heed to any proposal of any kind. So, their refusal have created an impression that they want Killa No,20 of Square No,65 at any cost without any factual justification although that Killa is surrounded by the other lands of respondent No,5. From the location as displayed by the map it appears that the land of Killa No,20 of Square No,65, if allowed to be retained in the Scheme/ Wanda of petitioners, it would not be conducive for the better cultivation and well being of both the parties and would create such an atmosphere, in which both parties would be at dagger's drawn. In fact the petitioners, arbitrarily and whimsically intend to get the aforesaid Killa. But they have lost sight of the purpose of consolidation, the aim of which is to adjust and consolidate the land holding inasmuch as they could be placed near to the land, already owned or possessed by each landholder. Each and every landowner cannot be adjusted and consolidated completely in the process of consolidation in accordance with his own wishes. To gain one, something has to be sacrificed. For the purpose of consolidation and to bring the lands of each landowner nearer to his main holding, adjustment has to be made, in which Killas are to be left to others, to have the benefit of propinquity of lands. The grant of Killa No,20 of Rectangle No,65 to respondent No,5 has been made on this score as found from the finding of learned Additional Commissioner's order, dated 10-12-1995 and in the orders of other Consolidation Authorities. The petitioners have been granted land nearer to their land holding in this process, therefore, their complaint cannot be considered even factually justified and correct.
6. The petitioners having transferred the land from their `Wandas' through Mutation No,482, have lost their right to get the disputed Killa returned to them because they have not only accepted the frame of new 'Wanda' after the order of learned ADC(C) but have created , an obstacle in their way to get back the aforesaid disputed Killa. Respondent No,5 has also referred to many other mutations having been made by the other petitioners/ co-sharers of the Wanda by making exchanges, gifts and mortgage in favour of different persons, for which he has produced copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year, 2000-2001 also, which has depicted the above referred alienations in the remark columns. So, in these circumstances, the petition of the petitioners cannot succeed. I am supported for this view by PLD 1992 Rev. 3 (Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Khan Zaman Khan, etc.).
7. The writ petition has been filed against the adjustment of Killa numbers having been made by the Consolidation Authorities, who are expert to judge the appositeness of lands, adjusted and against that adjustment, writ is not maintainable as held in the following quoted rulings by the apex Court:- "1997 SCMR 1611 (Asad Riaz v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others), 1989 SCMR 1096 (Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others), 1989 SCMR 1817) (Allah Rehman and others v.
Amtul Qayyum and another), 1981 SCMR 834 (Amir Din, etc. v. Muhammad Malik, etc.), 1970 SCMR 292 (Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others), 1983 CLC 404 (Muhammad Khan and another v. Pehalwan and others), 1988 CLC 2141, (Mst. Said Begum and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others), 1985 MLD 1279 (Qadir Bakhsh v. Mst. Mumtaz Batool Biluch), 1999 CLC 1023 (Farzand Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue etc.), 1981 CLC 823 (Ibrahim etc. v. Member, Board of Revenue etc.), 1982 CLC 2109 (Mst. Ham Bibi and 8 others v. Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and another) and PLD 1993 Lahore 694 (Brig. Sadaat Ali Shah v. Muhammad Hanif and 3 others)."
8. So, in these circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for interference into the lawful orders of the Consolidation authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.