' This review petition has been filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, against the order dated 10-2-1987, passed by the then learned Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Rajanpur, confirming the Consolidation Scheme. The learned Collector (Cons,) remanded the, case to the Consolidation Officer, for fresh decision, who vide his order dated 31-10-1982 made certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties. The respondents challenged the Consolidation Officer's order in the Court of the learned Collector (Cons.), who vide his order dated 27-3-1985 rejected the same. The respondents filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.); who vide his order dated 15-12-1985 dismissed the same.
The respondents challenged the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.)'s order in the Court of then learned Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide his impugned the same on the grounds that the Consolidation-scheme was confirmed eorrectly there was no need of subsequent changes beasuse in consolidation it is difficult to give each and every Khasra numbers to right holder according to their wishes. Hence this review petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of being heard and the case was decided ex parte. He added that there were concurrent findings of the two authorities below, therefore, no interference was called for. He further contended that at the time of filing of the appeal Moen-ud-Din, Muhammad Anwar, Aurang Zeb, Abdul Khaliq, Ghulam, Sher Muhammad, Ghulam Ahmed, Mubarak Ali Shah and Mst. Sakina were inadvertently impleaded as petitioners 2 to 9 whereas they were to be impleaded as respondents.
In order to arrive at a just and right conclusion it is necessary that the persons mentioned above may be allowed to be impleaded as respondents instead of petitioners 2 to 9. Concluding his arguments he prayed that the ex parte order dated 10-2-1987 passed by this Court may be set aside and the revision filed by the respondents be decided afresh.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents in rebuttal contended that the respondent Nabi Bakhsh filed the review petition on their behalf whereas they did not file any review petition. The petitioners 2 to 9 already submitted their photostat affidavits alongwith photostat of their Identity Cards that they were satisfied with the decision dated 10-2-1987, therefore, the review petition be rejected.
'
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the file reveals that petitioners Nos.2 to 9 submitted their affidavits stating therein that they did not file the said review petition as they were satisfied with the order dated 10-2-1987 challenged in the review petition. Only one of the petitioners moved an application that the petitioners Nos.2 to 9 may be allowed to be impleaded as respondents which is not correct.
' The application of the petitioner No,1 is hereby rejected. As most of the petitioners wanted to withdraw the review petition, the review petition had become infructuous. Therefore, I reject the review petition.
Review petition rejected.