' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Civil petitions Nos.430 and 699-L of 2001. In both these cases leave is sought against the judgment, dated 1-12-2000 of the learned Lahore High Court dismissing Writ Petition No,5394 of 1984.
2. Today, only C.P. No,699-L of 2001 was listed .Which is barred by time. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that C.P. No,430-L of 2001 was also directed against the same impugned judgment of the High Court and it would be in the interest of justice and to avoid conflict of decision that the two cases are heard together. We accordingly requisitioned the file of C.P.
No,430-L of 2001.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consolidation scheme was confirmed in 1973 while the appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner was filed in 1983, after about 10 years, which was dismissed and, therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner ought not to have interfered because meanwhile the petitioners had made improvements on the land allocated to them. The other grievance was that the learned Additional Commissioner had made unjust and uncalled for adjustments depriving the petitioners of their valuable land.
4. We have considered the submissions. Perusal of the order of the learned Additional Commissioner shows that the appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner was initially remanded vide order, dated 24-11-976, directing formulation of fresh proposals but ultimately it was dismissed vide order, dated 11-5-1983. Therefore, the contention that the first appeal was filed after ten years has no merit. We have also perused the petition filed by the petitioners before the High Court. No such ground that the first appeal was barred by limitation was ever taken. It may be noted that unless there is deficiency in the entitlement of a right holder, adjustment or allocation of land in consolidation has never been considered to be a fit subject-matter for being examined and adjudicated upon in constitutional jurisdiction. We will like to add that the landowners cannot possibly get the entire previously owned land or land of their choice as certain adjustments are inevitable to give effect to the object of consolidation of holdings.
5. Accordingly, we find no merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave declined.