' This writ petition has arisen out of consolidation proceedings, the Scheme of which was sanctioned by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 29th December, 1976. Respondent No, 1 challenged these orders in appeal but the appeal was dismissed on 10th August, 1980 by the Collector. Further proceedings before the Additional Commissioner ended in the same result when the respondent's case was rejected on 30th April, 1981, The respondent was, however, successful in the Board of Revenue when the learned Member allowed the revision petition on 6th December, 1981 and ordered that killa Nos. 1, 9, 10/1 and 12 of square No, 63 be given to Mst. Shakilla Bibi respondent and killa No, 10 of square No, 145 be given to the present petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue, of 6th December, 1981 in the present writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Assistant Consolidation Officer sanctioned the Scheme of 29th December, 1976 with the consent of respondent No, 1 given on her behalf by Abdur Rehman her father. It is submitted that the consent thus given by respondent No, 1 was not taken note of by Member, Board of Revenue thus resulting in an order which could be dismissed on grounds of having been passed without proper record.
2. The record has been produced by the revenue staff. It is an admitted fact that killa Nos. 1, 9, 10/1 and 12 which is now claimed by the petitioner belonged to respondent No, 1 before consolidation proceedings and that her other land adjoins this area. This land was banjar before consolidation and, the petitioner claims that after the consolidation was sanctioned, it was made cultivable by the petitioner. It is submitted on her behalf that the land has now come attractive and respondent No, 1 has been successful in the Board of Revenue in getting the order in her favour without bringing all the facts on record.
3. According to the proposals of consolidation Scheme shown in the register these field numbers were allocated to respondent No, 1 until an entry was made in the khata of the present petitioner on 17th November, 1976 to the effect that these filed numbers were allocated to the petitioner. A similar entry appears in the khata of the respondent No, 1 of 29th December, 1976 the date on which the Scheme was finally sanctioned. This entry shows that Abdur Rehman, father of respondent No, 1 gave consent to the alteration in the Scheme and agreed to surrender the claim to these field numbers. It is this consent which now requires careful scrutiny.
4. The first question to be examined is the date of consent which was given on 29th December, 1976. How is it possible then that more than a month before this date the Scheme was modified and these field numbers were allocated on 17th November, 1976 to the present petitioner. The consent given by Abdur Rehman also becomes doubtful for the reason that an ordinary prudent man will not choose to accept the land in square No, 154 which is far away from the remaining holding of respondent No, 1 in preference to the field number in question which lie adjacent to the remaining land belonging to the respondent No,
1. The contention that this aspect has not been taken note of by the learned Member is unfounded. The Board of Revenue has taken note of the alleeations of respondent No, 1 that the entry of 29th December, 1976 showing consent of Abdur Rehman, her father, was a forgery. This has been her case from the very beginning when she challenged the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in appeal before the Collector. In addition to this Parcha Khatooni and the Khasra Girdawari of these field numbers go in favour of respondent No,
1. Parcha Zamindaran, however, goes in favour of the present petitioner. Contrary to the observation of the learned Member, no Parcha Zamindaran was issued in favour of respondent No, I on 3rd February, 1977. She has produced a copy of such a document in reply to the present writ petition, but there is no verification of this document from the original record produced by the revenue staff. This aspect of the case, however, notwithstanding, there was preponderance of evidence in favour of the respondent No,
1. The orders of the learned Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue of 6th December, 1981, therefore, cannot be questioned on ground of want of record or against facts.
' For these reasons, I and no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs.