FAZLUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---This writ petition is directed against the orders of respondents Nos.398 to 401, passed on various dates, whereby two applications of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, one dated 4-5-1992 and the other dated 10-8-1998, for partition of the suit lands, were accepted.
2. The brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition are that contesting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, and hereinafter referred as the "contesting respondents" filed one application on 4-5-1992 and the other on 10-8-1998 for partition of the lands, as detailed in the applications and situated within the limits of village Punjman, Tehsil and District Swabi. In the application dated 4-10-1998, partition of the land required to be. Partitioned measures 1946 Kanals and 6 Marlas while in the application dated 4-5-1992, the land measures 6054 Kanals, 16 Marlas. These applications were filed by the contesting respondents on the ground that they are co-owners in the suit lands with the respondents (petitioners herein) and other co-owners but the petitioners, being in possession of the entire lands, they want to separate their due share through partition. The petitioners contested these applications and filed written statements. After recording evidence of the parties, by an order dated 17-7-2001, Tehsildar Swabi (respondent No,398) ordered partition of the lands.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal and the District Collector/D.R.O. Swabi (respondent No, 399) by an order dated 27-11-2001 accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Teshildar, Swabi with the direction to appoint Syed Farman Ali Shah, retired EAC (Revenue) as local commission to carry out actual partition of the suit lands on the spot with the help of the revenue staff. The Local Commissioner visited the spot and after making actual partition on the spot, submitted his report dated 20-3-2003, on the basis of which, respondent No,398 by an order dated 4-9-2002 accepted both the applications of contesting respondents and confirmed the partition proceedings carried out by the Commissioner. The petitioners were aggrieved by this order. They went in appeal but this time, the Collector/D.R.O.
(respondent No,399) confirmed the impugned order of respondent No,398. Not satisfied with the order of respondent No,399, the petitioners filed a revision but the Presiding Officer, Revenue Appellate Court-II, Mardan (respondent No,400 herein) rejected the same vide his order dated 8- 12-2003. Still not satisfied, the petitioners filed a second revision, which came up for hearing before Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar (respondent No,401), who by an order dated 4-8-2004 also rejected the second revision, hence this writ-petition.
4. We have heard Mr.Abdul Maabood Khattak, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Syed Muazzam Jamil, Advocate, learned counsel for the contesting respondents on pre-admission notice and have also perused the record.
5. Though in the writ petition, a number of objections had been raised but at the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners along with the respondents, including the contesting respondents, were co-owners in the suit lands and similarly, they were co-owners in some land situated in village Pabinai. During the consolidation proceedings of village Panjman, both A the parties agreed by a' Resolution No,10 dated 11-7-1968 to mutually transfer their respective lands to each other in the two villages, but this Resolution was not given any effect in the Revenue Record during the consolidation proceedings, as such, on the basis of the foregoing Resolution, the petitioners were owners of the suit lands. Accordingly, a question of title was involved, the decision of which was outside the jurisdiction of respondents Nos.398 to 401, therefore, the impugned orders are wrong and illegal.
6. The foregoing argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, without force because to give effect to the fore-going Resolution or to refuse it, amounted to adjustment or refusal to adjust land in the consolidation proceedings, which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities under section 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance No, VI of 1960) and under section 26 of the Ordinance, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any claim with respect to such dispute.
7. In the case of Abdul Jabbar and 6 others v. Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation) and 105 others (PLD 1976 Lah. 281) his Lordship of a single Bench of the Lahore High Court held:-- "Even on merits the petitioners have no case. Some of the points taken by the learned counsel before me are covered by the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan 1970 SCMR 292. It was held there that the adjustment of areas in consolidation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities and their orders on this score cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It was also held that the point as to which Khasra Number ought to be given to one party or the other is within the exclusive competence of the Consolidation Authorities."
8.-- In view of the express provisions of section 10 and section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and the authority cited therein, we fully agree with the foregoing observations of his Lordship. Even the foregoing observations are supported by the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the recently decided case of Nawab v. Ghulab and 4 others 2004 SCMR 1833 wherein the petitioners challenged the entries in the Revenue Record, recorded during the consolidation proceedings in the civil suit but the same was dismissed up to the Supreme Court and their Lordships observed, that:-- "We having considered the matter in detail, find that no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court wherein it has been held that due to the bar of jurisdiction contained in section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the civil suit was not maintainable."
9. Resultantly this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.