' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---By way of filing this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 24- 11-2010 passed by Mr. Muhammad Arshad Bhatti learned Member (Judicial-III) who dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner and upheld the orders passed by lower forums.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that feeling aggrieved of confirmation of consolidation scheme of Mauza Dera Noor Malik, Tehsil Shakargarh vide order dated 25-7-2000, respondent No,2 Mst. Razia Begum filed an appeal before the Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Narowal alleging that prior to the consolidation scheme, she was owner of 77 kanals 16 marla land of categories Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 but in consolidation scheme she had been allotted more land of category I but no land of category 5. She also contended that through consolidation scheme, she had been allotted land less than she is entitled to and requested that her share of category-I land be reduced and accordingly, share of category-5 land be enhanced.
In this petition, 22 respondents including the present petitioner were proceeded against ex parte and the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Narowal vide order dated 31-5-2003 accepted the appeal of respondent No,2 and made certain amendments in the wanda of respondent No,2 as well as in the wanda of the petitioner Ghulam Sarwar and his two brothers.
3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 31-5-2003 in appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Narowal with the averments that the ex parte proceedings had been taken against the petitioner as respondent No,2 provided incorrect address of the petitioner and that the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) has unlawfully reduced the share of the petitioner by withdrawing land of category 4 from him. However, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8-9-2004 on the ground of limitation.
4. The petitioner assailed the order dated 8-9-2004 in ROR No,1932 of 2004, which was accepted by Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 2-5-2007 and the case was remanded to Executive District Officer (Revenue) for decision afresh. Again, vide order dated 3-6- 2009, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 31-5-2003 passed by Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Narowal. The revision and review petitions filed by the petitioner also met with the same fate and were dismissed vide orders dated 20-10-2009 and 24-11-2010 respectively. Hence this constitutional petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the appeal of respondent No,2 Mst.
Razia Begum was barred by 1 year, 8 months and 23 days and she intentionally provided wrong address of the petitioner and in this way, manoeuvred ex parte proceedings against the petitioner but the Deputy District Officer without condoning the delay accepted the same without lawful authority and violated the provision of section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and reduced 22 kanals of land from share of category-IV of the petitioner without giving him opportunity of hearing. Further contends that the claim of the petitioner was for category V land and not for that of IV. He avers that the order dated 3-6-2009 passed by Executive District Officer is against the directions contained in order dated 2-5-2007 passed by learned Member Board of Revenue. Learned counsel argues that after confirmation of consolidation scheme on 25-7-2000, the petitioner, vide Mutations Nos.209, 210, 211, has already sold his share of land measuring 22 kanal 15 marla allocated to him through consolidation and the vendees have developed the land by spending huge amount thereon. Learned counsel next argues that the impugned orders are contrary to the law and facts and also not speaking one. Learned counsel prays that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders dated 24-11-2010, 20-10-2009, 3-6-2009 and 31-5- 2003 be set aside and the order dated 27-5-2000 confirming the consolidation scheme of Mouza Dera Noor Malik be restored. Learned counsel has relied upon the ratio laid down in cases Muhammad Hayat v. Member Board of Revenue and others (1992 CLC 2351) and Anwar All and 7 others v. Government of the Punjab through District Officer Revenue Jhang and 10 others (2008 CLC 278).
6. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 (Mst. Razia Begum) has fully supported the impugned orders. He chiefly contends that the petitioner has already sold his share of land on 17-7-2004, so he is no more an aggrieved person as prescribed by law and the vendees, if feel aggrieved, may agitate their grievance at the appropriate forum. Learned counsel asserts that this writ petition has no force and deserves dismissal. Learned counsel has relied upon the dictums laid down in case Abdul Ghani v. Abdul Farooq and others 1993 M LD 1643.
7. Learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab has opted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No,2.
8. Arguments advanced from all corners have been heard and the record also perused. The law cited by both sides has also been examined.
9. Admittedly, the consolidation scheme of Mauza Dera Noor Malik, Tehsil Shakargarh was confirmed under section 10(3) of Consolidation Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by the Consolidation Officer on 25-7-2000. Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No,2 Mst. Razia Begum challenged the consolidation scheme averring that she had been allotted less land as compared to her entitlement. She claimed that prior to consolidation scheme, she was owner of 77 kanals 16 marlas land of categories Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 while through consolidation scheme, she has been allotted more land of category I but no land of category 5. Accordingly, she demanded that her share in category I be reduced and her share in category 5 be enhanced accordingly. The revenue authorities found the contention of respondent No,2 as true and allotted her land of category-IV from the land which was earlier allotted to the petitioner.
10. The claim of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by respondent No,2 was time barred by 1 year, 8 months and 23 days and without condoning the delay, Deputy District Officer vide order dated 31-5-2003 accepted the same and allotted land of category IV from the share of the petitioner and his two brothers which is not in accordance with law. The petitioner also admits that he has already sold his land of category 4 vide Mutations Nos.209, 210 and 211 whereupon certain improvements have also been made by the vendees after spending huge amount.
11. It is evident from the record and also admitted by both sides that the petitioner has already sold his property which disentitles him for discretionary relief through constitutional petition. This was the main objection raised by the other side and the revenue authorities adverted to this point and decided the same in favour of respondent No,2 Mst. Razia Begum. Even, the Member Board of Revenue ousted the petitioner on this ground. The contention of the petitioner that although he has sold his share of land, yet he is entitled to get relief as he was allotted less land as compared to his entitlement, is untenable as the scheme has already been finalized and all the shareholders/owners have been given their respective shares of land and the petitioner has also sold his share of land.
12. The petitioner claims to have been rightly accommodated during the consolidation scheme but it is evident from the record that respondent No,2 was owner of 77 kanals and 16 marlas of land prior to consolidation scheme in categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 but after consolidation scheme, she was allotted land more in category I and no land in category 5, therefore, her share in the land considerably reduced, so she had every right in claiming that her share in category I be reduced and as a result, her share in land of category 5 be increased. Since the assertion of respondent Mst.
Razia Begum was fully justified, the Revenue Authorities rightly accepted her appeal and made certain. Amendments in the consolidation scheme by allotting some land of category IV to respondent No,2 from the land which were earlier allottee to the petitioner and his two brothers.
13. The contention of learned counsel for the petition With the order passed by Member (Judicial- VII), Board of Revenue, Punjab is not based on solid reasons and it is also not a speaking order is misconceived, as the same is well reasoned whereby the petitioner has been ousted on the ground that since he has sold his share of land, he has no locus standi in the matter. There are also concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out any illegality in the impugned orders. The law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable in the circumstances of the case in hand. On the other hand, law cited by learned counsel for respondent No,2 is fully applicable to this case wherein it has categorically been held that alienation of part of holding by petitioner will disentitle him to, relief in writ jurisdiction as after alienation rights of parties cannot be readjusted and pre- consolidation position cannot be restored. In the circumstances, the petitioner has no case at all.
No interference is called for. - 14. In a nutshell, the petitioner has already sold his share in the disputed property, so after sale of his share, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this constitutional petition. There are concurrent findings of fact and law against the petitioner and the revenue authorities have rightly passed the orders impugned. As a consequence, the instant writ petition having no force 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.