' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--During the pendency of the Consolidation proceedings in the village, the petitioner managed to get two mutations attested whereby he was stated to have purchased land from respondent No,l. These mutations were ignored by the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing the Scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal and allotted some additional land to the petitioner on the basis of the said mutations.
Respondent No,1 filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner alleging that he had not sold any land to the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue but failed. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but again met with no success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The petition is clearly without any merit. Section 24, Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 stood in the petitioner's way. This section reads as " When an application for the consolidation of holdings has been made, no land-owner ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power, without the sanction of the Consondation Officer, during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings, to transfer or otherwise deal with any part of his holding so as to affect the rights of any other land-owner * * * * * * * * * * * * under the scheme of consolidation."
The mutations were attested without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer and this violated the above provision. Therefore the petitioner could not draw any A benefit from them. The petition is dismissed.