RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 5-3-2003 and 4-1-1994 passed by Member (Consolidation), Board of A Revenue, Punjab, Lahore/respondent No,2 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Milian/ respondent No,4 passed during the consolidation proceedings.
2. Petitioner and respondent No,1 are the land owners in Mauza Qasba Marral Tehsil and District Multan. Petitioners were allotted land vide scheme No,1266 in Mauza Qazba Awal Tehsil and District Multan while respondent No,1 was allotted land vide scheme No,12 under consolidation proceedings in Qasba Marral Tehsil and District Multan during the consolidation operation vide order dated 30- 3-1986 passed by the Consolidation Officers. An appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the order dated 30-3-1986 was accepted on 4-1-1994 by the respondent No,
3. Petitioner assailed order dated, 4-1-1994 in appeal, which was accepted by the Addl. Commissioner Consolidation Multan on 31-7-1994 and set aside the order dated 4-1-1994. Respondent No,1 filed revision petition under section 13 of Consolidation Holding Ordinance against the order dated 31-7-1994 before respondent No,1/Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, who accepted the same on 5-3-2003 and set aside the order dated 31-7-1994 by upholding and restored the order dated 4-1-1994 passed by respondent No,3, hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No,2 while passing the impugned order had not applied its judicial mind; in view of the impugned order land of the petitioner will be divided into two parts one part in Qasba Marral and other part in Qasba Awal. That impugned order is against the spirit of Consolidation Holding Ordinance, 1960; that respondent No,2 had not considered the quantity of land; that before Consolidation operation whereby property of the petitioner was in Mauza Qasba Awal but through impugned order land situated in Khasra No,748/11- min (4-K 16-M) and 748/12 (8 Marlas) was given to the petitioner. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents none turned up. Writ was admitted for regular hearing on 1-2-2007.
He placed reliance on Mst. Krim Khatoon v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (1984 CLC 436), Ahmad Khan v. Asghar Ali (1989 CLC 2483 and Shahab Din v. Mst. Khudija Begum (PLD 1983 Lah.
591).
4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
5. I have gone through the orders passed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue/respondent No, 2 as well as. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/respondent No, 3 dated 5-3-2003 and 4-1-1993 which reflects that B they have passed the impugned orders after taking into account respective pleas of the parties as well as the other record. It will be appropriate to reproduce the operative parts of the impugned orders dated 5-3-2003 and 4-1-1994 respectively.
'Order dated 5-3-2003 "7. The learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) observed that the order of the Collector (Cons.) was clear violation of the established principles of consolidation 'as he has transferred the field numbers owned by the appellants (respondents) in village other than the one where they owned land prior to the consolidation operation." What he has conveniently ignored is the factum of possession and the ownership of the disputed Khasra numbers of the present petitioner before consolidation.
8. It is not a case of deficiency of land or qualitative change. Every right holder cannot be allotted land according to his choice. The Musawada Scheme takes precedent over all over considerations and keeping that fact in view, the petitioner could not have been deprived of her previously owned and possessed land. Even otherwise, it has been admitted by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not sold any piece of land.
9. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by the petitioner and the consideration staff committed a grave mistake by depriving her of the suit land."
'Order dated 4-1-1994 "I have gone through the record and heard arguments narrated above. I am of the opinion that the disputed area in the appeal was previously owned as sole owner and was in physical possession of the appellant which was included in the wandas of the respondents without the consent of the appellant herself. This was a void order and delay does not count here. The following changes will be made consequently."
'Section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holding ordinance (VI of 1960) is reproduced as under:- "Unless there was deficiency in the entitlement of a right holder, adjustment 0i allocation of land in consolidation had never been considered to be a fit subject matter for being examined and adjudicated upon in constitutional jurisdiction. "
Land owners could not possibly get land of their choice and certain adjustment has to be made in order to attain the object of consolidation of holdings. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has got less area of super quality and respondent No,1 was given of superior quality which resulted into further splitting up of his holding in two places.
Apart from facts this cannot be a ground for interference in the Consolidation proceedings.
Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore v. Umar Saigal and others PLD 1974 SC 139, Ghulam Nabi v. Member Board of Revenue and others (1981 SCMR 696). The impugned orders have been passed in terms of sections 10, 13, 3, 2(f) of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960). Controversy involved in the matter pertains to section 10(1). Record shows that matter was dealt by Public Functionaries of the revenue hierarchy and they gave findings on the question of facts after scrutinizing/ examining the record. These findings of facts cannot be interfered in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed pn Patna and others y, Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and Others (2004 SCMR 1690), Muhammad Badar-ul-Munir v. Chairman, Arbitration Council and 2 others (1989 SCMR 1097) Allah Rehman and MIA V. Amtul Qayyum and another (1989 SCMR 1817) and Muhammad Hayat and others v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue and others 2007 SCMR 1950.
6. There is no illegality or infirmity has been found in the impugned order and the same cannot be interfered in the constitutional jurisdiction.
7. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed.