' The main contestents in this writ petition are two real brothers who owned land in village Rasilanwala of Tehsil Phalia. This village was selected for the purpose of consolidation of holdings.
The Musawwada scheme was announced by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 8th April 1968 on the basis of the jamabandi prepared for the year 1964-65. It was ultimately approved by the said officer on 30th June, 1973. Respondent No, 5 felt aggrieved by the scheme and on 26th August, 1973 he preferred an appeal before the Collector. His main grievance was that some of his holdings in the village had been allowed to remain un-partitioned. During the hearing of the appeal the petitioner who was the only other person interested in the matter expressed no objection to the partition of the joint holding. Accordingly, on 31st January, 1974 the Collector accepted the appeal and called upon the Assistant Consolidation Officer to partition the joint holding of the two brothers. On 2nd June, 1974, the Assistant Consolidation Officer partitioned the joint holding. This time respondent No, 5 was dissatisfied with the mode of partition for he thought that some of the land which ought to have been included in his lot had been wrongfully given to the petitioner.
Accordingly, on 24th August, 1974 he preferred an appeal before the Collector. This appeal was accepted on 26th October, 1974 by the Collector who called upon the Assistant Consolidation Officer to re-arrange the lots, keeping into consideration the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1964-65, the physical possession of the parties at the spot and the spirit of consolidation that there should not be any unnecessary fragmentation of the holdings. The petitioner who was quite satisfied with the lots prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer challenged the order of the Collector before the Commissioner. This appeal was accepts on 11th June, 1975 by the Additional Commissioner at Rawalpindi. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that while partitioning the holdings the Assistant Consolidation Officer had already taken into account the entries of the jamabandi for the year 1c64-65 and the actual physical possession of the parties at the spot : consequently a remand to him for a fresh arrangement of the lots was uncalled for. From the order of the Additional Commissioner respondent No, 5 went in revision before the Board of Revenue. His revision petition was accepted on 16th March, 1975 by a learned member of the said Board who restored the order of remand. While accepting the appeal the learned member observed that though the consolidation had been done on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1964-65, the lots had been arranged on the basis of the possession as of 1973. He thought that this was an improper thing to do. The petitioner has challenged the order of the 19i:trued member in this Court.
2. It will be noticed that there is no dispute between the parties about their respective entitlements in the joint holdings and what they are fighting about now is how the common land should be split up. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in preparing the two lots the actual physical possession of the co-owners over the various parcels of the joint holdings should be the governing factor. In this context he refers to a decision of the Financial Commissioner reported as Harram Singh v. Bhag Singh (1). This case has no bearing on the proposition advanced by the learned counsel. Here one of the co-sharers had mortgaged a part of the joint holding in his actual possession. At the request of the mortgagee the Financial Commissioner directed that as far as possible the mortgaged land should be included in the share of the co-owner who had created the mortgage. Even if the contention of the learned counsel be accepted on its face value, the learned member cannot be accused of having acted in violation of that principle. He has not said in his order that the possession of the parties should be entirely ignored ; A all that he has directed is that instead of possession as of 1973 the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1964-65 alone should be taken into account. This does not appear to be unjustifiable because the entire consolidation scheme was prepared on the basis of that jamabandi. However that may be, the learned Counsel has been unable to point out that while giving the said direction the learned member has contravened any express provisions of law or some basic assumptions involved in the partition of joint holdings. It is to be noticed that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution does not sit ; B as a Court of appeal or of revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of Raja Shah v. Nazar Hussain Shah
(2) to impugned the order of the learned member of the Board of Revenue but I can see no relevancy of that case to the facts before me. The case mainly dealt with the effect of a declaratory decree of a Civil Court on the entitlement of the parties, during the course of consolidation proceedings. As stated earlier, there is no dispute between the parties before me with regard to their entitlement in the joint holding.
4. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.
(1) (1930) 9 L L T 3 (2) PLD 1976 Lah. 658