' The petitioner feels aggrieved of the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue dated 21-11- 1978 dismissing the petitioner's revision petition. This case has a long history of litigation. The proposal for consolidation in the village was made in 1965 and the petitioner was given 249 kanals, 9 marlas of land in the consolidation proceedings in lieu of his land measuring 107 kanals, 12 marlas. The change in entitlement was worked out on the basis of the classification of soil. The petitioner accepted this proposal as he felt that in this process he will be adding to the size of his holding even though some of it was of a lower classification. The scheme could not be confirmed and the case was remanded on 27-2-1971. This time the holding of the petitioner was reduced to 171 kanals, 14 marlas but he again accepted this proposal. The scheme was finally confirmed on 31-3- 1971, but it was challenged in the Court of the Collector in appeal who again remanded the case for fresh decision. The A. C.
0. This time on 1-3-1974 made certain modifications in the scheme against which the petitioner went in appeal to the Collector. His appeal was dismissed on 9-12-1975. His revision before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed on 20-7-1976 but the case was remanded by the Member (Consolidation), Board of 'Revenue on 28-3-1977 on a further revision petition moved by the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner then heard the parties again but the petitioner's case was dismissed again on 25-9-1977. He moved a revision petition in the Board of Revenue, but the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision on 21-11-1976, against which he came to the High Court invoking the writ jurisdiction.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that after the proposal of 1965 the petitioner took over the possession of the land proposed in his name. A part of this land was banjar and the petitioner developed it at his own cost. According to him, the subsequent modification of this scheme has hurt him severely because he has not been compensated for the money and effort spent on developing the barren land. It has strongly been urged on his behalf that excepting his tube-well the area where he has grown trees and otherwise made it cultivable has been taken away from him.
3. There is no denying the fact that in the consolidation operations the entitlement of the petitioner has not been reduced. It is only with regard to the plotting that the petitioner feels aggrieved. The question as to what particular plot of land should be given to one landholder or the other is entirely for the consolidation authorities to decide and the High Court cannot interfere in exercise of the writ jurisdiction in this regard. The case of Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue (1) and the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar etc. (2) can be referred to in support of this, proposition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that one Barkat Ali Girdawar was interested in this case in respect of the land which has been transferred in the name of Sher Muhammad respondent No, 14 and on account of his personal interest petitioner's case has suffered on account of malice. I am afraid, the conduct of a Girdawar whatever his interest in the matter might be, cannot be deemed to affect the decision of the Collector or other superior revenue authorities. The petitioner has not shown any mala fides on the part of the Collector or other Revenue authorities.
5. A miscellaneous the has also been moved in the course of the present writ petition with the prayer that this writ petition may be heard along with Writ Petition No, 522 of 1977 as the latter writ petition will have a bearing on the disposal of the present writ petition. I am afraid, there is no force in this application for the reason that in the Writ Petition No, 522 of 1977, the question of allotment of some land in favour of Sher Muhammad respondent No, 14 has been raised by an informer. The result of that writ petition cannot in any case have any bearing on the disposal of the present writ petition. If the informer succeeds in Writ Petition No, 522 of 1977, he at best will substitute the transferee and that land cannot come to the share of the petitioner one way or the other. The petitioner is, however, under the impression that if said Sher Muhammad (respondent No, 14) loses that writ petition that land might also be included in the share of the present petitioner because the petitioner had developed that land when it was given in his possession after the proposal of 1965. Since the decision in Writ Petition No, 522 of 1977 can have no bearing on the present writ petition, the miscellaneous petition is also rejected.
6. The result of the above discussion is that the orders of the consolidation authorities do not call for any interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.