1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 13-9-1980 dismissing Writ Petition No. 7296 of 1980 filed by the petitioners whereby they sought to Challenge the orders of a learned Member, Board 9f Revenue, Punjab, The facts of the case briefly stated are that a Consolidation Scheme for village Kassoki was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Gujrat on 31-5-1970 but 'one appeal from the respondents 1 to 8 and one Faqira, the Collector remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer by order dated 17-8-1973. On remand, the Consolidation Officer submitted fresh proposals dated 28- 6-1974, but the Collector again rejected the same by his order dated 14-9-1974. According to the petitioners, the same proposals were submitted again to the Collector, who, however, approved them on 22-11-1975. Petitioners' revision application against this order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, but his second revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab succeeded in part on 1-11-1976. Against this order, two review applications were filed, one by the petitioner and the other by Faqira. Petitioners' review application was partly accepted and that of Faqira was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue by order dated 28-6-1980. It was this order that was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7296 of 1980 in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed, and the petitioners now seek special leave to appeal.
2. Shaikh Naweed Shahryar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Collector was not competent to approve the same proposal which had earlier been rejected by him by order dated 14-9-1974 and subsequent order dated 22-11-1975 passed by him, is, therefore, invalid in law.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the original Scheme dated 31-5-1970 is perfectly legal, and it should have been approved.
4. We find from the record of the case that after partial acceptance of petitioners' revision application, the grievances agitated by them, as contained in their review application, were that (i) due to an oversight, area measuring 19 marlas out of Square No. 24, Killa No: 1, had been omitted and it was to be restored to the petitioners, and that (iJ) petitioners' precious land measuring 4 kanals, situated in Square No. 16, Killa No. 21, was taken away, and instead, 4 kanals of land situate in Square No. 9, Killa No. 13/1, which cannot be irrigated by a well, has been given to them.
5. Learned Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 288-6-1980 accepted petitioners' first submission, but rejected the second, and since the second grievance, according to the learned Single Judge in the High Court, does not involve any jurisdictional question, he refused to interfere with .r the impugned orders in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. Admittedly, petitioners have been given land according to their entitle ment and their grievance that they have not been given 4 kanals of land at a particular place cannot justify cancellation of the entire Consolidation Scheme in respect of the whole village.
7. So far as the first point raised by the learned counsel is concerned, it would suffice to mention that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated I-11-1978, has Interim order dated 14-9- 1974 directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to reconsider the proposals of the Consolida--tion Officer as these did not seem to be in accordance with the principles of consolidation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer re-submitted on 24-10-1974 the proposal of the Consolidation Officer, dated 28-6-1974 as it t was in accordance with the remand order dated 17-8-1973 of the Collector (Cons.). These were then approved by the Collector on 22-I 1-1975.
8. In view of these facts, the order of the Collector dated 14-9-1974 was not the final order but an interim order, and, therefore. The first contention raised by the learned counsel has no factual basis and is, therefore, without substance. For these reasons the petition is dismissed in limine.