' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition the petitioners have called-in-question the order passed by the Member (Judicial-V) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore dated 25-6-2004 in ROR No, 763 of 1998 filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts of the case are that Mauza Barreka Hithan, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar was under consolidation. The Consolidation Officer confirmed the consolidation scheme on 25-5-1993.
Scheme No, 51 was of the petitioners whereas Scheme No,81 was of the respondents. Ghulam Hussain petitioner No,1 was also member of Mashawarti Committee. On 29-12-1993 petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation) Bahawalnagar, which was filed after the prescribed period of limitation. In this appeal the petitioners contended that their owned and possessed land has been given to the respondents, therefore, they prayed that the land mentioned in this appeal be given to them. On 29-3-1994 petitioners filed an application praying therein that they be allowed to amend the memo of appeal so that the land mentioned in this application be mentioned in the memo of appeal and this land be given to the petitioners.
' Respondents filed reply of this application on 28-6-1994 and they submitted that this application is frivolous and that this application as well as the appeal be dismissed. There is no order for granting permission to amend the appeal or allowing this amended application on the record.
There is an order dated 26-12-1995 wherein Collector Consolidation has found that as the amended memo of appeal is on the file, therefore, it can be presumed that application for amendment would have been allowed previously whereas the stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that this application was never granted. The petitioners of their own filed amended appeal along with application for amendment. The Additional Commissioner Bahawalpur on 23-4- 1996 allowed this appeal. Against this order. The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Consolidation which was accepted on 25-3-1998 and the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner(C) dated 23-4-1996 was set aside and that of Consolidation Officer dated 25-3-1994 confirming that consolidation scheme was restored.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner Consolidation the petitioners filed a revision before the Member Board of Revenue. This R.O.R. No, 763/98 was dismissed vide order passed by the Member Judicial Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore on 25-6-2004 which is the subject-matter of this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no doubt petitioner No,1 was member of Mashawarti Committee but he was never associated with the consolidation proceedings; further that the consolidation schemes were passed in violation of the consolidation laws; that his identity card number is fictitious as mentioned in the consolidation scheme and visibly his signatures on various documents are not similar, that Member Board of Revenue has not independently decided the revision petition filed by the petitioners but he has reproduced the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation. Further states that under the rules of Board of Revenue it was the duty of the consolidation staff to issue KATCHA PARCHA of the parties before finalization of the scheme but PARCHA which has been issued to the petitioner is dated 16-12-1993 whereas the scheme was confirmed on 25-5-1993; that under Rule 10(3) of the Consolidation Rules ... The Consolidation Officer can confirm the WANDA only when the parties to that scheme agree to that otherwise he can submit the matter to the Collector.
5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf or the respondents states that petitioner No,1 was admittedly the member of Mashawarati Committee and his stance that confirmation of the scheme of Mauza was not in his knowledge, is absolutely wrong; that the appeal filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation was clearly time-barred and further that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is also not applicable to the consolidation proceedings. Further submits that both the parties were joint owners before the consolidation, Therefore; the stand of the petitioners that they were owners in possession of the land sought to be given to them under consolidation scheme is absolutely wrong; that there are three decisions in the consolidation hierarchy in favour of the respondents, therefore, there is no case of interference by this court in composite findings of facts recorded by the competent Tribunal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at full length and have gone through the record of this case which is also very voluminous as both the parties have produced all the relevant record with this writ petition and written statement was also filed by the respondents.
7. No doubt the scope of exercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,. 1973, with this court with regard to check glaring illegality and jurisdictional A defect visible on the surface of the record of subordinate Tribunal is available. If there are factual differences between the parties that cannot be gone into by this Court. The first point raised by the petitioners that no doubt petitioner No,1 was the member of Mashawarti Committee but to contradict the stand taken by the petitioners, that he was not associated with consolidation proceedings, against that the respondents have placed certified copies on record.
Annexure R-1 statement of member of Mashawarati Committee dated 22-2-1993 for acceptance their appointment as the member Mashawarati Committee. This document is, signed and thumb- marked by petitioner No, 1 as well as other two members. Annexure R-D is the list whereby PARCHA KHAM Plot Bandi was distributed to the landowners. There are signatures of Ghulam Hussain against Scheme No,51 and Annexure R.E. Is certified copy of Qabzul Wasol. In this document at Scheme No, 51 there are signatures of Ghulam Hussain. The learned counsel for the respondents have also placed on record his general confirmation order of consolidation scheme dated 25-5- 1993. On this document along with others there arc thumb impressions and signatures of Ghulam Hussain. Respondents have placed on record certified copies of Scheme Wanda No,17,38,50 and 52.
All these schemes bear the signatures of Ghulam Hussain as member Mashawarati Committee. I am unable to understand that what was the necessity with the consolidation staff to forge the signatures of petitioner No,1. Ghulam Hussain on these papers. This record has been prepared in routine in performing the official duties by the consolidation staff. The statement of petitioner No,1 that he has not signed all these papers has absolutely no value. The signatures -on all these documents seem to be of petitioner No,1 as there are minor variations which are natural in the signatures of person who is not much educated. If this point is clear and proved on record that petitioner No, 1 has signed the scheme as well as general scheme register in finalization of scheme on 25-5-1993. All these objections raised before this court which are factual in nature cannot be gone into. I have no doubt in my mind that in availability of these certified copies of official record petitioner No,1 signed the scheme and therefore, his appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) on 29-12-1993 was time barred and I find that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available. Under Consolidation of Holding Act, 1960 limitation has been provided in this Act, this being special law, therefore, it governs the limitation and general law of Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable, till the time it has been made applicable. In consolidation Act it has not been specifically made applicable. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) was having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the time-barred appeal. Further I have noticed that all the objections raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and voluminous case laws cited before the court relate to factual controversy, there is no necessity to go into each and every question raised before this court because factual controversy cannot be resolved in this constitutional petition.
8. Another fact which has come on the file is that in appeal moved before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) the petitioners prayed that a specific land be given in their Wanda but in the amended application another land was sought. With this record the learned counsel for the/respondents states that as the land is adjacent to the river, therefore, when the lands fall in the river bed, the petitioners start claiming the other land. It may be so, but I am not inclined to go, in the factual controversy between the parties. There are three decisions of the consolidation hierarchy in favour of the respondents whereas only the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) has given findings in favour of the petitioners which were also without jurisdiction because the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and even the proceedings before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation with regard to amendment of appeal were not in accordance with law.
9. In the light of what has been discussed above I am not inclined to exercise this extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.