CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This judgment will dispose of Writ Petition No,15446 of 2004 and Writ Petition No,9173 of 1995 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the plaint are that consolidation scheme of Joyianwala revenue estate, District Sheikhupura was confirmed on 31-12-1979 but the said order of the confirmation was set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division vide his order 2-1-1980. On 23-1-1989, the scheme was again confirmed but the same was, cancelled by the Member Board of Revenue on 9-6-1990. The consolidation scheme was ultimately confirmed on 31-3-1992. Ghulam Haider petitioner along with Rehmat Ali and Ahmad Din challenged the order of the confirmation of scheme dated 31-3-1992. It was maintained by the appellants that the petitioners/appellants have been deprived of land comprising of Square Nos.94, Qilla Nos.9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 22, Square Nos.65 Qilla No,20, Square No,66 Qilla No,16 and the previous possession has not been kept in view, thus, the scheme was illegally confirmed. The said appeal was dismissed by the Collector (Consolidation) on 27-3-1995.
3. That the present petitioner went in appeal against the order dated 27-3-1995. The Writ Petition No,9173 of 1995 was disposed of by his Lordship Mr. Justice Anwar-ul Haq on 5-4-2002 with the observation to decide all the pending appeals in accordance with law. The order dated 5-4-2002 was challenged before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The C.P.L.A. No,1692-L of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn on 14-4-2002.
4. That the appeal pending before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Sheikhupura was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner in utter violation of the orders passed by this Honible Court on 31-10-2002.
5. That ROR No,1901 of 2002 was preferred by the aggrieved persons and legal representatives of Ahmad Din and Rehmat Ali were brought on record with the permission of the court. Now writ petition is being filed by Ghulam Haider, Karamat Ali and Khalid Hussain. The remaining legal representatives of Ahmad Din and Rehmat Ali are being impleaded as respondents. The said ROR was dismissed by Mr. Shaukat Ali Shah, learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 16-9-2004.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of confirmation of scheme and the subsequent order passed on 27-3-1995, 31-10-2002 and 16-9-2004 are without lawful authority which be declared null and void and of no legal consequences on the ground that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) has made a specific direction that the appeals are to be decided by the Collector (Consolidation) ignoring the amendments made in para 10 of the Register of Consolidation and it be assured that the matters be decided keeping in view the correct classification. Attention will also be paid in the matter of land falling on the road. Needless to state that individuals grievances be considered and matters be decided in accordance with law but the direction of this court in Writ Petition No,9173 of 1995 was not complied with. While the appeals of the petitioners were instead of deciding on merit, were disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that while deciding ROR No,1901 of 2002 on 16-9-2004, learned Member (Consolidation), Board\ of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore disposed of the ROR while holding that the petitioners have come up against two concurrent orders. Learned counsel further contends that there is no concurrent orders against the petitioners and Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has erred while holding that there is two concurrent findings against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further emphasized on the report prepared by the Patwari (Consolidation) and has contended that the said patwari has pointed out the deficiency in the entitlement of the petitioners and finally learned counsel has put more stress on register scheme whereby two khasra numbers of petitioners were deleted by the patwari. Learned counsel further contends that a patwari has no jurisdiction to delete the khasra numbers, therefore, writ petition be allowed, case be remanded back to the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore to decide it afresh in the light of judgment of this court mentioned herein above.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab has vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and contended that writ petition, is without any substance. The matter has been finally decided by at various forums to the satisfaction of the petitioners. The petitioners are in possession of land which was transferred to them with their consent and in writ petition, this matter could not be agitated and also the questions about the allotment of Qilla number to the parties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authority, therefore, writ petition be dismissed.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. Perusal of record reveals that Consolidation Scheme of revenue estate, Joyianwala, District Sheikhupura was confirmed previously on 31-12-1979 but it was later on annulled by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore vide order dated 2-1-1980. Thereafter a fresh scheme was approved on 23-1-1989 in the light of order dated .2-1-1980 of the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). This scheme was also cancelled by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 9-6-1990 and a 3rd scheme was confirmed by the consolidation officer on 31-3-1992.
10. That the order dated 31-3-1992 was challenged at various forums till the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, but the petitioners failed.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has put more stress on the report of patwari Mumtaz Hussain who has simply stated in his report that in khana No,5 of khata, two khasra numbers were deleted.
This report has no importance becauseit was furnished by the patwari Mumtaz Hussain who is not a Revenue Officer. Report of Patwari unless verified by a Revenue Officer has no sanctity in the eye of law because the A patwari is a mere villager officer who is custodian of Revenue Record and whose duty is to keep the Revenue Record up to date subject to the affirmation of Revenue Officer so a simple report of patwari which even does not show that it was prepared on whose direction could not be considered.
12. The other objection of the petitioner is that two khasra numbers were deleted by the patwari in khana No,5. The record reveals that deletion of Khasra numbers were verified on 24-3-1992 and thereafter the petitioners were allotted 123 kanals 2 marlas with deficiency of 6 marlas Which is recognized under the consolidation scheme.
13.The petitioners have raised the question of entitlement of various Qilla numbers in grounds Nos.5 to 10 of their writ petition which could not be considered in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court because the exclusive jurisdiction in this behalf vest to the revenue authority. Reliance is placed on 1970 SCMR 229, PLD 1974 SC 139 and 1997 SCMR 161L 14.In the light of above discussion, these writ petitions fail. No interference is called for. Order accordingly.