' Facts emerging from the perusal of the record and from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar are that the consolidation scheme of village Noor Allah Dad, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1978.
Ghulam etc. Respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed an appeal in which present petitioners, Noora respondent No,8 and some others were arrayed as respondents. This appeal was allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) by his order, dated 16-8-1979 (Annexure 'A') whereby he remanded the case to the. Consolidation Officer, Chiniot "for drawing out fresh proposal". Consolidation Officer, submitted fresh proposal to the Collector who by his order, dated 10-2-1981 (Annexure 'B'), made some adjustments in the Khatas of the parties and allotted land measuring 26 Kanals and 14 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.23, 24 and 25 in square No,9 to the petitioners with drawing it from the Khata of Ghulam etc. Respondents. This order of the Collector was challenged in two appeals, one filed by respondents Nos.1 to 7 and the other Noora respondent No,8. Additional Commissioner by his order, dated 9-5-1981 (Annexure 'C') accepted both the appeals on the short ground that "both the parties are not satisfied with the order. "He, therefore, set aside the order of the Collector (Cons.), dated 10-2-1981 and remanded the case to him with the direction that "he should decide the cases afresh after hearing both the parties keeping in view the entitlement and possession of the parties according to the principles of consolidation operation".
After the remand, case remained pending with the Collector who by his order, dated 19-1-1982 (Annexure 'B') consigned the case to the record for the reason that some connected matter was pending before the Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue, Punjab. It was, however, observed in the order that the parties could get the case revived after the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue.
2. Both the learned counsel agreed that the aforesaid case was constned to the record on account of the pendency of two revision petitions viz. R.O.R. Noora respondent No,8 herein and some other who are not party in the present proceedings and R.O.R. No,189 of 1981, filed by one Shahadat (who, too, is not a party in the present proceedings) against the present petitioners. These two revision petitions came to be filed in the following circumstances: - "The aforementioned consolidation scheme of village Noor Allah Dad confirmed by A .D.C. (Cons.), was challenged by the present petitioners in an appeal filed against Noora respondent No,8 herein and some others who are not parties in the present petition. Petitioners' complaint in the appeal was that they had compact block of 241/2 Acres which had been wrongly taken away from them and they were instead given the land of inferior quality. Learned A .D.C. , Jhang by his order, dated 16-8-1979, dismissed the petitioners' appeal holding that they were given most of their pre- consolidation area. Petitioners then approached the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) through a revision petition which was partly accepted by order, dated 26-10-1980 whereby Khasra Nos.8/13/2 and 18 measuring 16 Kanals were given to the petitioners and area measuring 15 Kanals 12 Merles comprised in Khasra Nos.6/11 and 19 was given to Shahadat. Petitioners as also Shahadat filed the aforementioned two revision petitions before the Member, Board of Revenue."
3. These two petitions were disposed of by a single order, dated 19-6-1983, (Annexure 'E') whereby learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue, allowed the revisions petition of Shahadat (R.O.R.
No,189/81), dismissed the petitoners' revision petition (R.O.R. 2635/80) and restored the original consolidation scheme, dated 31-5-1978, with the following observations: - " After having heard the parties through their counsel at length and on perusing the relevant record I find that in the original consolidation scheme, dated 31-5-1978, the Wandas of both the parties were framed with their own consent and did not call for any amendments. These so-called amendments have resulted into disintegration of the compact block of Shahadat petitioner.
However, the area in square No,8, which has been withdrawn from Shahadat petitioner was not previously owned and possessed by Ahman etc. And, therefore, it could not be appropriately given to them. In these circumstances the amendments made by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) cannot be allowed to sustain."
' Petitioners challenged the decision of the Board of Revenue in W.P. No,3099/83 which was dismissed on 19-7-1983.
5. After the aforementioned two revision petitions were decided by the Board of Revenue as aforesaid and the petitioners' it petition filed against that decision was dismissed they approached the Collector through an application, dated 30-7-1983, (Annexure 'F') requesting him for revival of the proceedings which he had earlier consigned to record. Collector dismissed this application by order, dated 17-12-1983, (Annexure 'G') holding that in view of the order of the learned Member.
Board of Revenue passed in the aforementioned two revision petitions, there was nothing left to be decided. Petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Collector, dated 17-12-1985, which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner vide his order, dated 24-3-1984, (Annexure 'I'). Additional Commissioner took the view that the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 19-6- 1983, did not pertain to the case pending before the Collector. Noora respondent No,8 challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner in revision (D'O'B. No,1170/84) which the learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue accepted by his order, dated 24-6-1984, (Annexure 'J') holding that by his earlier order passed in the aforementioned two revision petitions, he had restored the confirmation of the consolidation scheme of the village. Learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, reiterated that "the original consolidation scheme, dated 31-3-1978, is, restored as between the parties." This order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present constitutional petition.
6. Main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the earlier order of the learned Member. Board of Revenue, dated 19-6-1983 was passed on two revision petitions filed by the petitioners and Shahadat (not a party in the present proceedings) and that the land in dispute in those petitions was also different from the one involved in the present proceedings. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the learned Member proceeded on incorrect premises in deciding the present revision .Petition on the basis of his earlier order, dated 19-6-1983. This argument overlooks the facts the learned Member dismissed the earlier revision petition of the petitioners on the ground, inter alia, that in the original consolidation scheme of village Noor Allah Dad, Wanda of the petitioners was framed with their own consent. It was for this reason that the learned Member had by his order, dated 19-6-1983, restored the original consolidation scheme.
Now which the matter relating to an arising out of the same consolidation scheme came up before the learned Member, he rightly set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, reiterated his earlier view and held that the original consolidation scheme, dated 31-3-1978, is restored as between the parties". Petitioners who were earlier found to have consented to the consolidation scheme could not agitate against it. It is significant that the petitioners have not challenged the finding that their Wanda was framed with their consent.
7. It may also be noticed that so far as present proceedings are concerned, to start with, matter was agitated' not by the petitioners but by respondents Nos.1 to 7 who had filed the appeal against the order of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) confirming the consolidation scheme. Case, as noted above, finally stood remanded to the Collector who declined to proceed with it in view of the order of the learned Member. Board of Revenue, dated 19-6-1983. In this view of the matter, petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any grievance as a result of the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter which need be noticed. After the remand by the Additional Commissioner, Collector consigned the case to the record to await the decision of the learned Member, Board of Revenue in the aforementioned two revision petitions. Petitioners submitted to this order. If their position was that the matter pendin before the learned Member, Board of Revenue in two revision petitions had not bearing on the proceedings before the Collector, they shoul have challenged the order of the Collector consigning their case to the record which they did not do. They cannot now be heard to say tha two proceedings were wholly different. In fact, earlier order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue remains operative and binding qu: the petitioners and it has been rightly reaffirmed in the impugned order with the result that the petitioners could not claim to reopen th consolidation scheme to which they were consenting parties.
' For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merit and th same is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
Writ .