Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he seeks no relief against respondents Nos.5 to 21 and they are only pro-forma respondents. He submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner is directed only against respondents Nos.3 and 4. This position is not controverted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.3 and 4. In the circumstances, this case is being heard in the absence of respondents Nos.5 to 21.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Syed Muhammad Asghar purchased 23 kanals and 2 marlas of land comprised in khasra Nos.904 (8 kanals), 913 (4 kanals), 914 (8 kanals) and 936 (3 kanals and 2 marlas) from Ghulam Hussain and Mst. Rasool Bibi respondents Nos.20 and 21 through a registered sale deed dated 14-12-1979. The sale was given effect to in the revenue record through mutation No.18 sanctioned on 29-7-1979.
Mutation was, however, subsequently cancelled on review on 26-6-1981. Petitioner admittedly did not file any appeal or revision against the order passed on review. Since the mutation stood reviewed/cancelled, the aforemetioned khasra numbers continued to be shown in the revenue record in the name of the previous owners viz. Ghulam Hussain and Mst. Rasool Bibi with the result that during consolidation operations corresponding khasra numbers were not given to the petitioner. He, therefore, challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24-12-1983 in an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) who dismissed it by his order dated 22-7-1984. Petitioner then preferred a second appeal which was accepted by the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) vide order dated 1-6-1985 holding that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the area which he had purchased from Ghulam Hussain etc. But the vendor Ghulam Hussain surrendered it in favour of Sabir Hussain etc. Respondents Nos.3. & 4 herein. Addl. Commissioner then proceeded to observe 'that it would be just and proper to allot to the petitioner khasra Nos.868,869,870 etc. Which were taken away from Ghulam Hussain and allotted to Sabir Hussain etc. With this observation, the case was remanded to the Collector for passing order after hearing the parties. Feeling aggrieved with this order, respondents Nos.3 & 4 took the matter in revision before the learned Member (Cons), Board of Revenue, who accepted it on the ground, inter alia, that the second appeal before the Commissioner was not competent. It was also observed by the learned Member that mutation No.18 sanctioned in favour of the petitioner having been cancelled on review and the petitioner not having challenged the order passed on review, it had attained finality and, therefore, petitioner had no locus standi at the time when the Consolidation Scheme of the village was prepared. Order of the Addl. Commissioner passed in favour of the petitioner was accordingly set aside.
This was vide order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 27-4-1988. Aggrieved with the aforementioned order of the learned Member (Cons.) petitioner has approached this Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the Consolidation Officer present with record. Consolidation Officer states that khasra Nos.904, 913, 914 and 936 which the petitioner had purchased from Ghulam Hussain and Mst. Rasool Bibi were given new numbers during the consolidation. The new numbers, according to the Consolidation Officer, are as follows: Previous Nos.New numbers with areawith area 904 (8 kanals)847 (8 kanal)
913 (4 kanals)855)
856)
857)(4 kanal)
914 (8 kanals)858)
859)
860) (8 kanal)
861)
936 (3k&2m)880 (3k&2m)
4. In view of the position afore stated, which the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny, petitioner could, at best, be said to have claim over the new khasra numbers aforementioned but he certainly had no claim whatsoever over khasra Nos. 868 869 and 870 as they were not in his ownership before consolidation. Learned Additional Commissioner appears to have proceeded on erroneous premises in holding that the petitioner was entitled to Khasra Nos.868,869,870 etc. Admittedly, these khasra numbers do not represent the land purchased by the petitioners from 'respondents Nos.20 and 21. That being so, the order of the Additional Commissioner was not sustainable in law and was rightly set aside by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, though on different grounds.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, being just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case does not merit interference m discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./M-1522/L