' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Consequent upon consolidation proceedings in the village, an area measuring 10 marlas out of Killa No,11 of Square No,26, measuring in all 10 kanals and 4 marlas, was allocated to the respondent. The petitioners who are related to the respondent, filed a suit for a declaration that they were owners of the entire Killa in their own right as well as through adverse possession. The learned trial Court decreed the suit with regard to the Killa in question but excluded from the declaration the area of 10 marlas which had been given by the consolidation authorities to the respondent. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court but that too failed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed by the petitioners that prior to consolidation their holding was joint with the respondent and that the respondent had a share in the Killa in dispute (see statement of Yara, petitioner, before the trial Court at page 48 of the paperbook). A part of the Killa was being used for residential purposes. The reason why the consolidation authorities gave 10 marlas out of the Killa in question to the respondent was found by the Additional District Judge to be as follows:-- "It is,admitted by the parties that due to the flood which fell in the year 1973 both the parties left their houses and sought a shelter from the flood area as the disputed property fell under the flood.
Ahmad D.W.2 has admitted that the parties were in possession of the disputed property jointly before the consolidation proceedings which indicated that the respondent/defendant had his houses on the disputed property prior to the consolidation proceedings. This is why the respondent/defendant was sided by the Addl. Commissioner, Consolidation, to the effect that he should not be deprived of his houses constructed by him on the disputed property."
There was thus a good justification with the consolidation officer for the allocation of the area in question to the respondent. We see no reason to disturb the order of the consolidation authorities which does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.