' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant constitutional petition assailed the orders dated 14-12- 1999, 4-1-2003, 12-8-2003, 6-4-2006 and 6-7-2006 passed by respondents Nos.1 to 4, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby joint holding was partitioned and the same was maintained by the officials/Courts in revenue hierarchy.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondents Nos.5 to 7 filed an application under section 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 praying partition of joint land measuring 262 Kanals, 2 Marlas situated in revenue estate of village Jia District Mandi Baha-ud-Din, duly detailed in the application before Tehsildar/ As sistant Collector Grade-I. Petitioners being respondents in the application seeking partition, consented to the partition and the said Court approved mode of partition of land proposed by the parties. Tehsildar/ A-C-I cognizant of the matter, accepted the application of respondents Nos.5 to 7 on 4-12-1999 and directed the Halqa Patwari/Girdawar to prepare "Naqsha Jaat" etc.
3. Petitioners were not satisfied with the "Naqsha Taqseem" and consequently, filed an appeal before the District Collector, which was dismissed on 8-3-2001. Petitioners, thereafter, by concealment of dismissal of their earlier appeal, on 1-6-2002 filed another appeal before the Collector/D.O.(R) and the same was again dismissed on 4-11-2003. Petitioners then filed a revision petition before the E.D.O. (R) challenging dismissal of their appeal vide order dated 4-1-2003 but without any success, as the same was also dismissed on 12-8-2003. They then challenged revisional order before the learned Member, Board of Revenue by maintaining R.O.R. No.1620 of 2003 which also met the same fate of dismissal on 6-4-2006. Petitioners' review petition was also declined by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 6-7-2006. They have now filed instant constitutional petition, with the relief noted above. Private respondents in response to notice by this Court have appeared and were represented through their respective counsel.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Under the provisions ' of section 161, of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Collector /D.O.(R) could examine the legality or otherwise of the order dated 4-12-1999 passed by Tehsildar/AC-I, only once and the subsequent appeal filed before the Co1lector/D.O.(R) through concealment of earlier decision dated 8-3-2001, was not competent. Petitioners in their subsequent appeal before the D.O.
(R) had challenged The same order dated 14-12-1999 by filing the appeal on 6-3-2002 after lapse of about two years and three months which was-patently barred by limitation of 30 days provided by section 162 of the Act of 1967, These facts were duly noted by the E.D.O.(R) in his order dated 12- 8-2003. Above all, petitioners had undisputedly, consented to the partition of joint holding and its mode, before the Tehsildar/AC-I and were estopped to challenge it through an appeal. Besides it, order dated 8-3-2001 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed B by the District Collector was not further challenged and the same had attained finality, hence in presence of this order, the Courts working in revenue hierarchy correctly declined interference, without committing any error of law/facts.
5. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was made out. Even otherwise, lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction, cannot be substituted on this petition which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.