Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala whereby application for correction of Khasra Girdawari filed by the petitioner was dismissed; order dated 26.01.2010 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Member (Judicial-VII) Board of Revenue, Punjab who dismissed ROR, No. 874 of 2010 Of the petitioner .
2. Brief facts of the case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioners filed an application for the correction of Khasra Girdawari to the District Officer (Revenue) Gujranwala on 01,06.22006 which was, dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2008. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Excutive District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala vide order dated 26.01.2010 ROR No. 874 of 2010 of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Membber (Judicial-VII) Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 04.09.2013. Hence; this writ petition.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the and gone through the record with his able assistance.
4. Admittedly , the respondents purchased land measuring 02- Kanals 07-Marlas in joint Khata and became co- sharer whereas the petitioner has remedy to file .suit for partition of agricultural land before the Tehsildar in this regard. Furthermore, to determine the issue of correction of Khasra Girdawari as well as the actual cultivating possession of the property is factual in nature which could only be settled after recording of evidence which exercise ordinarily cannot be undertaken in constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others vs. Government of N. W.F.P. through Secretary , Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCMR. 618) and Anjuman Fruit-Arhtian and others vs. Deputy Commis.sioner , Faisalabad and others (2011 SCMR 279 ).
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegali ty or material irregularity in the impugned orders and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect calling for interference by this Court.
6. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits.