CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---The brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of Mauza Hinjrai Ghair Mustaqil Gharbi; Tehsil Kat Addu, District Muzaffargarh, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 24-6-1985 under section 10(3) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that Khasra Nos.60/19/2 (4-Kanals) 60/20/1 (4-Kanals) previously owned and possessed by the petitioners was illegally allocated to the respondents No,4 to 7. The petitioners submitted an appeal for the restoration of the above said area before respondent No,2, which was accepted vide order dated 22-1-1986. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 assailed the aforesaid order before respondent No,2, who vide his order dated 16-11-987 set aside the order of the Collector/respondent No,3. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before respondent No,1 and the same was also dismissed on 13-2-1990, review of which was also dismissed vide order dated 6- 8-1981.
3. It has been the contention of the petitioners that the land in question was wrongly allocated by respondents No,1 & 2 to the contesting respondents No,4 to 7. It has also been urged by the petitioners in their writ petition that the allocation of this area to respondents No, 4 to 7 is against the spirit of consolidation, as the land owned by the petitioners could not be given to the contesting respondents and that the impugned order of respondent No,1 is not the speaking order and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 to 7 has supported the impugned order.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. The land situated in Khasra No,174/17 was in fact borne out at Khata No,46. The petitioners have no concern with this Khata. The matter has been resolved before the Consolidation Officer and upto the level of the Member Board of Revenue and it has been found on fact that the entitlement of the petitioners had been fully met. None of the principles of the Consolidation appears to have been violated in the present case. It has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in Muhammad Hayat v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue and others 2007 SCM R 1950 at 1951) that:-- "4. It may be noted that unless there is deficiency in the entitlement of a right holder, adjustment or allocation of land in consolidation has never been considered to be a fit subject-matter for being examined and adjudicated upon in constitutional jurisdiction. We will like to add that the landowners cannot possibly get the entire previously owned land or land of their choice as certain adjustments are inevitable to give effect, to the object of consolidation of holdings."
7. In the light of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court it can safely be said that the impugned orders are within the jurisdictional purview of respondents 1 & 2 and there is no misconstruction of law, or non-reading or misreading of evidence in the orders.
8. This writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.