FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-The Consolidation Operations of village Dewaal Tehsil Fateh Jang District Attock were carried out by the Consolidation Authorities, fn the. Original Consolidation Scheme as approved on 29-6-1986, old Khasra No. 457 (new Khasra No. 519) measuring 1 kanal, 2 marlas was allotted to respondents Ali Muhammad etc. By the Consolidation Officer. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned Collector (Consolidation) directed that the petitioner would surrender place of land measuring 8 marlas out of Khasra No. 518 on the southern side and would get 8 marlas on the .Western side of Khasra No. 519. And Ali Mohammad etc. Respondents would get khasra No. 518 from the southern side proposed to be left by the petitioner. This was vide judgment dated 24-4-1990. The respondents Ali Muhammad etc. Filed an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 9-8-1990 passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division. The respondents filed a revision petition ROR No. 1736/90 whereupon, the learned Member Board of Revenue, set aside the orders dated 24-4-1990 and 9-8- 1990 passed by the learned Collector Consolidation and the learned Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, respectively. Consequently, the Scheme as originally approved on 29-6-1986 by the Consolidation Officer was restored. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 22 -8-1993.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the courtyard of the petitioner was situated in Khasra No. 519/1 measuring 8 marlas which ought not have been allocated to the respondents, it was further argued that the orders passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division should not have been set aside by the learned Member, Board of Revenue exercising his limited jurisdiction.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Ali Muhammad etc. Argued that in the original scheme the petitioner was already a gainer as he had been allotted a land with 374 feet width facing the road, whereas the respondents were given only 36 feet width of the land.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The impugned orders passed by the learned Consolidation Officer as well as by the learned Member, Board of Revenue are just and fair doing substantial justice between the parties. Ordinarily, unless there is some talent error of law or gross injustice this Court is not expected to interfere with the Consolidation of the land a village in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others Vs. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139).
5. For the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine.