' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner seeks setting aside the judgment dated 18.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan as well as the order dated 28.07.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this Civil Revision are that the petitioner challenges the consolidation proceedings before the Civil Court for separation of joint "Wanda" No, 438 relating to khasra No, 98/2, Kilia No, 5 (northern) measuring 4 Kanals. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the Section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance; 1960 against which an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 18.09.2008, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land comprised of "Wanda" No, 438 was non- agricultural/residential/commercial and therefore, Consolidation Department has no jurisdiction to partition the same. The petitioner was condemned unheard by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), hence prays for acceptance of this revision petition. Places reliance on PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Collector District Khushab, Jauharabad and others v. Haji YAQOOB KHAN and others (2007 SCM R 554) and PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Collector Sargodha v. MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and another (PLJ 2012 SC 540).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the revenue hierarchy has the exclusive jurisdiction and therefore, placed reliance on MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others v. PROVINCE OF OUNJAB AND OTHERS (2007 YLR 709), NAWAB v. GHULAB and others (2004 SCM R 1833) and ABDUS SATTAR v. SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 5 OTHERS (1979 SCM R 287).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Admittedly, u/s. 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 the jurisdiction of Civil. Court is specifically barred and the record does not establish such nature of the land which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities. Both the Courts below have correctly applied law on the facts. I do not see any illegality in the impugned judgments. In this view of the matter, this civil revision has no merit is, therefore, dismissed. Civil revision .