' A Consolidation Scheme was sanctioned on 29th October, 1976 by the Collector, Shorkot, but this was challenged in appeal by the respondents and the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha on 7th August, 1977 remanded the case. The revised Scheme was sanctioned by the Consolidation Officer on 25th November, 1979 but this was challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the appeal on 28th April, 1980. The revision, petition before the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 23rd August, 1980 and a second petition seeking review of the order in revision was dismissed on 21st January, 1981. The present writ petition challenges the orders of the Revenue Authorities beginning with the revised Scheme sanctioned on 25th November, 1979 to She dismissal of review petition by the Board of Revenue on 21st January, 1981.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Scheme as it was originally sanctioned on 29th October, 1976 was reasonable and there was no need for its revision. It has also been contended that the respondents had given consent to the original Scheme and they were estopped from challenging it in appeal. It has also been argued that the assumption of the Revenue Authorities that the petitioner No, 2 had given consent to the revised Scheme was erroneous as petitioner No, 2 was absent and his absence has been misinterpreted to be a consent on his part. Petitioner No, 1 had not given his consent which has properly been recorded by the Revenue Authorities.
3. Whether the first Scheme sanctioned on 29th October, 1976 was sanctioned with the consent of Pehalwan respondent No, 1, is a question which has been hotly debated. The petitioners rely on Annexure 'H' dated 9th July, 1976 which bears a thumb-impression of Pehalwan respondent as a token of his consent. The respondents, on the other hand, have referred to R-1 and R-2 which are two applications dated 21st August, 1976 and 20th August, 1976 made against the Patwari. These applications inter cilia assert that blank forms have been got thumb-marked by the Patwari in order to prepare false papers for consolidation. The dates are important. The consent of Pehalwan is said to have been given on 9th July, 1976 the applications against the Patwari were given in the months of August and September, 1976 but all this happened before 29th October, 1976 when the Scheme was originally sanctioned. The consent given on 9th July, 1976 by Pehlwan was questioned by him straightaway. The principle of estoppel therefore cannot operate in these circumstances and he cannot be prevented from seeking of appeal against the sanction of the Scheme. What is still more important is the fact that on 7th August, 1977 the Additional Commissioner set aside the original Scheme of 29th October, 1976 and remanded the case for fresh proposals in accordance with the observation made in the remand order. The order of 7th August, 1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner was never challenged by the petitioners. They, however, challenged the fresh proposals made in the Scheme which was confirmed on 25th November, 1979. This gives entirely a new complexion to the whole dispute. In effect therefore, the petitioners now seek to challenge the Scheme as it was confirmed on 25th November, 1979. Their challenge to the Scheme 'has not been successful in the revenue Courts but the adjustments of the Khatas made by the Revenue Authorities for reasons sufficient or not cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the original Scheme sanctioned on 29th October, 1976 had consolidated the land of petitioner No, 1 into single holding, of petitioner No, 2 also into a single holding and of the respondents in two holdings. As against that the revised Scheme has consolidated the holdings of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 also into two plots each. This is contrary to the purpose of consolidation. I am afraid, the petitioners cannot be permitted to compare the first Scheme with the revised Scheme in order to show whether the purpose of consolidation has been achieved or not. For this purpose, the position as it obtained before consolidation and what has been achieved during the consolidation is to be considered: The final result as observed by the learned Member is that the number of plots of both the parties have been reduced. The purpose of consolidation has, there- fore, been achieved.
' In view of the above considerations, I find no force in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs.