Khasras Nos. 313 and 312 are the bone of contention between the parties in consolidation proceedings. The Consolidation Officer, Shakargarh sanctioned the Scheme of 26th October, 1972 in which be allocated these khasra numbers to the petitioners. The respondent challenged the order in appeal on the ground that initially these khasra numbers had been allocated to the respondent but were struck of fraudulently by the Consolidation Officer while sanctioning the Scheme. The case was remanded more than once but the Consolidation Officer maintained his original order of allocating these two khasra numbers to the petitioners. On 30th December, 1977 the matter came up once again before the Collector in appeal. This time he himself ordered adjustments of the Khatas and allocated these two khasra numbers to the respondent. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Collector in appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 3rd June, 1978. Their revision petition in the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 24th October, 1979 and an application for review was also dismissed by the learned Member on 19th January, 1980. This writ petition challenges the orders of the revenue authorities.
2: Khasras Nos. 312 and 313 which correspond to old Khasr Nos. 245 and 246 did not belong to either of the parties before the consolidation proceedings. None of the parties, could have a preferential claim over this land. The allocation of these khasra numbers to either of the party depended on the discretion of the consolidation authorities The orders of the Collector passed in appeal on 30th December, 1977 making adjustments of the Scheme and allowing these khasra numbers to the respondent therefore was not unjustified. Needless to say that he had the jurisdiction to pass that order.
3. The petitioners installed a tube-well in the disputed khasra slumbers during the course of the proceedings. At one stage, before the Consolidation Officer, a proposal was mooted that the costs of the tubewell may be paid by the respondent but it was not accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent was motivated only for reasons of party faction which is evident from the fact that he rejected a fair offer. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has stated that the respondent cannot afford to pay for the tube-well and .In any case the petitioners are free to remove the machinery, if they so desired. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit on account of installation of the tube-well as they had installed it in spite of a stay order granted by the Collector. On 20th February, 1973 the Collector had made such an order on the application of the respondent and this order had been incorporated in the Rozenamcha of 22nd February, 1973 vide Rupat No. 87. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim that the stay order had not been incorporated in any of the revenue record.
4. The facts of the case as enumerated above reveal that the petitioners cannot take advantage of installing a tube well as he had been restrained from doing so by the Collector on 20th February, 1.973. As t the relative merit of the clams of the parties this is an admitted position that neither of the parties owned these khasra numbers before the consolidation proceedings and were therefore equal with regard to the claim for these B khasra numbers. Furthermore the allocation of khasra Nos in consolidation is entirely within the competence of the consolidation authorities and no interference can be made through, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. In view of these considerations, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.