KARAM ELAH88 CHAUHAN, J.--It is not necessary to mention the lengthy details of the stages and the Courts or forums through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the order which we propose to render in this case, that the dispute herein, is with regard to a particular area of land, which the petitioners claimed in the process of consolidation of holdings, should have been given to them and not to the respondent. As a matter of fact the petitioners for that purpose filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 1793/68 which was dismissed by the High Court on 26th August 1975. It is the aforesaid order against which leave to appeal is being sought from this Court.
2. It is well settled that the consolidation authorities have the juris--diction to make lots for giving land to each land-owner, with regard to his entitlement, and also to make blocks of his total holding in that respect. In the instant case, it is conceded, that the area ultimately allotted to the petitioners has not been diminished in any manner and rather their number of blocks have been brought down from 11 to 10. This will show A that the petitioners have not suffered in any manner from the ultimate orders passed in the consolidation proceedings. In these circumstance as laid down in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar an others PLD1974SC139 (which was a case of consolidation of holdings), this is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.