' Consolidation scheme of village Dailera, Tehsil Shakargarh District Sialkot was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 30-9-1979. On the complaint of certain land-owners of the village, Additional Commissioner (Cons.) called fresh proposals from the Collector (Cons.) and on the basis thereof made some amendments in the Khatas of the parties by order dated 25-1-1981. Abdul Ghani, father of the petitioners challenged these amendments by filing an appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30-9-1919. Collector (Cans.) dismissed the appeal by his order dated 30-3-1981 with the observation that the proposals submitted by him earlier were approved by the Additional Commissioner and Khatas amended accordingly vide his order dated 25-1-1981, and that the appellant, if aggrieved with the amendments made by the learned Additional Commissioner may see his remedy in the next higher Court i,e, Board of Revenue. Abdul Ghani filed a further appeal which, too, was dismissed on merits by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) by his order dated 15-6-1982. Abdul Ghani then filed a revision petition in the Board of Revenue claiming therein that he may be restored his previous area around abadi deh. Learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue took up for hearing together revision petition of Abdul Ghani as also revision petition filed by Abdul Ghani's sister Mst. Bibi. Learned Member (Cons.) found that "the record shows that the petitioners have been suitably accommodated in Khasra Nos. 671, 673, 1258, 1259 and 1260. These Khasra numbers are not only closer to abadi deli than their previous Khasra numbers but are in excess of the area held by them around abadi deli before consolidation."
Learned Member also took the view that a right-holder is not entitled to claim each and every Khasra number held by him before consolidation. With these findings, the learned Member dismissed both the revision petitions by his order dated 2-10-1983.
2. Petitioners who are successors-in-interest of Abdul Ghani have invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the aforesaid order of the learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue and other Consolidation Authorities.
3. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the area given to the petitioners in consolidation was far away from abadi deli and the findings of the. Learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue and the learned Additional Commissioner that the same was closer to the abadi deli were incorrect. Though the question raised by the learned counsel was concluded by concurrent finding of fact recorded by A the Tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction, I gave .a number of opportunities to the learned counsel to substantiate his point with reference to the record. Learned counsel has stated today that he is unable to produce! Any record to show that the Khasra numbers given to the petitioners in A consolidation were not near abadi deh. Thus the finding recorded by they learned Member (Con.) Board of Revenue is unexceptionable. It was also rightly held by the learned Member that in consolidation operations, a right-holder is not entitled to claim the area held by him before consolidation. Even otherwise, allotment of area is the exclusive function of! Consolidation Authorities and this Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction cannot interfere with the exercise of that function.
4. Reference may be made to GI; ulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue (1) wherein it was held that "the question as to which Killa number should have been given to the parties was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. The High Court could not sit it judgment against the order of the Revenue Authorities in such matters". Similar view was expressed in Mst. Ilam Bibi and 8 others v. Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue (2) wherein it was observed that "furthermore, the allocation of Khasra numbers in consolidation is entirely within the competence of the consolidation authorities and no interference can be made through the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court".
' In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
(1) 1970 SCMR 292 (2) 1982 CLC 2109