The petition in hand calls in question vires of the concurrent orders passed by the revenue hierarchy right from the Court of first instance up to the apex forum, whereby application made by Respondent No. 2 under Section 135 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the partit ion of joint holding was accorded. The record suggests which otherwise is also not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that long ago Respondent No. 2 had tabled afore-noted application for separation of his share out of the area falling in joint khewat and allowed on 05.07.2014, but without extending any right of audience to the petitioners, therefore, the matter remanded by the District Collector to the AC-I. The latter again accorded it in presence of present petitioners vide order dated 18.06.2015, which sustained through dismissal of appeal, revision petition as well as ROR by the District Collector , Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and learned Member , Board of Revenue on 17.02.2020, 18.03.2020 & 22.10.2020 respectively .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners despite taking maximum time failed to convince that either Respondent No. 2 was not sharer or he was awarded more land than his entitlement. The revenue hierarchy while passing the impugned concurrent orders focused the compactness of wandas and the potential/worth/location of the block awarded to the sharers. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot go deep into factual controversy requiring the evidence, whereas on its face value neither impugned orders are coram non judice nor ultra vires rather were passed while keeping in mind the afore-noted parameters in dividing the property to the right holders as per their shares. Thus no case of interference with the impugned orders is made out therefore, this petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.