FARRUKH LATEEF, J - Vide order dated 25.9.1996, the then Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue had stopped consolidation proceedings of Mauza Parhar Sharqi; later on Vide another order dated 16.10.1997 the Member (Consolidation), B.O.R. Directed that the consolidation proceedings in the said village be completed. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner and others filed a revision petitioner drawing the attention of Member, Board of Revenue to the previous order passed by his predecessor on 25.9.19,96 and prayed to set aside the subsequent order by way of review. The said revision was disposed of vide order dated 20.3.2001 whereby subsequent order dated 16.10.1997 was modified to the extent that consolidation proceedings in village Parhar Sharqi would be conducted strictly in accordance with the decision taken by Member (Consolidation), B.O.R. On 12.11.1997.
Accoutring to the said decision constructed area falling in municipal limits of the said village was allowed to be excluded from consolidation operation.
2. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2001 in this writ petition as mala fide, illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
Inter alia it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that:-
(i) most of the land in village Parhar Sharaqi falls within municipal limits and is urban, in nature;
(ii) the Board of Revenue vide Notification dated 16.4.1997 had excluded . Land falling in municipal limits from consolidation operation;
(iii) Revenue record of the said Mauza was destroyed by fire and it has not been reconstructed, hence consolidation proceedings on the basis of un-authentic record is likely to create mischief; and.
(iv) respondent No. 1 had no authority to review his earlier order.
4. Writ petition was strongly opposed by the respondents. Arguments heard; writ petition its annexures and comments filed by the respondents perused.
5. According to the comments, 61 acres of land in the aforesaid Mauza still lie out side the municipal limits the petitioner alongwith some others has un-authorisedly occupied much more land and that during consolidation proceedings excess holdings would be adjusted in favour of real owners.
6. Notification dated 16.4.1997 issued by the B. O.R. Whereby land falling within the municipal limit was excluded from consolidation proceedings was superseded Vide order of Member (Consolidation) B.O.R. Passed on12.11.1997 which is not assailed in this writ petition and has, therefore, attained finality.
7. Contention of the petitioner s counsel that record of Mauza was burnt and it has not been reconstructed is refuted in the comments wherein it is asserted that on entire record was not destroyed and the portion which was destroyed has been reconstructed under the orders of the competent authority. It is a controversial question of fact requiring evidence which cannot be determined in writ petition.
8. Adverting tb the argument that respondent No. 1 had no authority to review his own order, it may be observed that it was the petitioner who alongwith others had filed the revision petition before respondent No. 1 and had prayed therein for cancelling his earlier order dated 16.10.1997 by way of review; hence after invoking the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 and not getting favourable result, now it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the said respondent had no authority to review his own order. Anyhow, under Consolidation of Land Holdings Ordinance, 1960, Member (Consolidation), B.O.R. Enjoys the power of review.
9. For the sake of arguments if it be assumed that respondent No. 1 was not competent to review his own order and the impugned order is void even then purpose of the petitioner would not be served inasmuch as in that case earlier order of respondent No. 1 passed on 16.10.1997 (which was modified by way pf review) would hold the held according to which consolidation operation of the entire Mauza .(including constructed area falling within municipal limits) was directed to be conducted.
10. For the Reasons stated above, writ petition is hereby dismissed.