' This Writ Petition arises out of consolidation proceedings starting in early sixties. The precise dispute over which the parties are fighting eversince relates to a passage comprising Khasra No, 38 carved out in those proceedings. Its former Nos. Were 30, 31 and 32. At least six Marlas being part of Khasra No, 30 were claimed to belong to the petitioner. On a grievance made by the respondents that the area allotted to them in consolidation was lesser, they were allowed to apportion this passage with a view to make good the deficiency in their entitlement. It evoked proceedings and counter-proceedings uptil the Board of Revenue where the learned Member by his order, dated 1st April, 1978 confirmed its transfer to the respondents by eliminating the passage altogether.
2. The present petitioner who was not a party to those proceedings, had no objection to the continuance of the passage despite having contributed six Marlas to it from his own Khasra No, 30, yet he did not like that on its elimination, the area should be allotted to the respondents.
Accordingly, he preferred a Review Petition before the learned Member, but it was dismissed on 17th October, 1979.
3. The present Writ Petition brought on 28th September, 1983 was challenged to be seriously hit by laches. Liaqat Hussain v. Punjab Government etc. (1) was cited in this behalf wherein delay of two years after passing of the impugned order was considered to be inordinately long so to justify dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Mr. Shahid Hussain Kadri, in reply, contended that the petitioner had challenged the relevant mutation, dated 24th April, 1980 uptil the Board of Revenue where finally his request was turned down on 24th August, 1983 and thus the writ petition brought within a month thereafter on 27th September, 1983 was not hit by laches.
5. The mutation R-5 was nothing but a step taken in implementation of the basic order, dated 1st April, 1978 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. It could not be characterised to be a new cause of action, nor would the petitioner's appeal or revision etc. Arising therefrom be regarded as an independent remedy. The real grievance for the petitioner, if any, arose when his Review Petition was dismissed on 17th October, 1979, and the basic order, dated 1st April, 1978 was confirmed.
Obviously, to challenge it on 27th September, 1983 i. e. After a period of four years, was by all means too late. Laches were attracted. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents applies comparatively with greater force as the delay here was twice as much.
6. Apart from this aspect, allotment in Consolidation proceedings was the exclusive function of the concerned authorities. It is not for the High Court to see what area be given to whom. Ghulam Qadir v. Board of Revenue etc. (2) is a direct authority on the point. On this score too, carving out a passage, its elimination subsequently and allotment to a right-holder to make good deficiency in his entitlement cannot be scanned in writ jurisdiction.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
8. C. M. No, 3927/83, by virtue of which the applicants therein were impleaded as necessary party, will also fail along with the writ petition itself. .
(1) NLR 1983 Rev. 89 (2) 1970 SCMR 292