CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2007 whereby the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector -I, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala accepted the application for partition of a joint khata, filed by respondent No.1; the order dated 01.04.2008, whereby the Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector-I dismissed the application of the petitioner under section 12(2) read with Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.12.2007; the order dated 03.12.2008, passed by the District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala who dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner and others; the order dated 24.03.201 1, passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner; and the order dated 19.05.2012, passed by the Membe r, Board of Revenue whereby the ROR No.860/201 1 filed by respondents Shaukat Ali etc. was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 Muhammad Abdullah filed application under section 135 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for partition of joint khata situated in village Thatha Faqir Ullah on 24.07.2007. The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector-I, Wazirabad vide order dated 15.12.2007 initiated ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner and others and accepted the said application for partition. Present petitioner along with Shaukat Ali etc. filed application under section 12(2) read with Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.12.2007 which was dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 01.04.2008. The petitioner and others filed appeal before the District Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2008.
The petitioner and others filed revision petition which was dismissed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala on 24.03.201 1. Against these orders, petitioner along with others filed ROR No.866/201 1 which was also dismissed by the Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue on 19.05.2012. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. The Tehsildar on the basis of conceding statement of parties in the application for partition, recorded evidence and prepared mode of partition which was not challenged by any Party and during the proceedings of the said application, nobody raised objection on the naqsha/mode of partition. The said application was accepted by the Tehsildar on 15.12.2007. Petitioner Nazar Muhammad then filed application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and order . The Tehsildar discussed in detail the process of service upon petitioner , who was respondent in the said application, which was duly issued and service of the petitioner was effected but nobody appeared on his behalf before the Tehsildar upon which ex parte proceedings were initiated. The Tehsildar , having no. merits in the said application, dismissed the same on 01.04.2008 which order has been upheld upto the Board of Revenue. The impugned orders were lower fora were challenged before the Board of Revenue by 11 persons including the petitioner , out of which only the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue, as such, to their extent the impugned orders have attained finality . The petitioner claims his share of 04 Marla in the joint khata which has already been given to him; as such, the petitioner has badly failed to bring out anything on record to show any illegality or irregularity while preparing the mode of partition of the joint khata. This Court in absence of any patent illegality or irregularity cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of revenue hierarchy in the constitutional jurisdiction and could not sit at the decisions of revenue authorities who are the best judges to ascertain the rights of the parties according to their respective ownership. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Raza Khan through Legal Heirs and 3 others v. Member , Board of Revenue, N. W.F.P. Peshawar and others (1999 SCMR 873 ).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect calling for interference by this Court. The revenue hierarchy has given concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and the conclusions made by the revenue hierarchy are based on cogent reasons, as such, same do not call for any interference by this Court. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Akram v. Member , Board of Revenue (Judicial-V1 11 and 8 others (2014 MLD 870).
6. In view of above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.