' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 284/67, 160/67, 161/67, 1094/67 and 1104/67 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.
2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a consolidation matter. The Collector (Cons.) confirmed the Consolidation Scheme of village Jandoo Sahi, Tahsil Daska, District Sialkot on 22-2- 1965 under section 10(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred an appeal More the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 30th October, 1965. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was partly accepted on 6-5-1966 and the Consolidation Scheme was modified. Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed a review petition which was rejected by the Member, Board of Revenue on 13th September, 1966. The petitioners by filing this Constitutional petition have challenged the order dated 13th September, 1966 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue as also orders passed by subordinate Consolidation Authorities.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Member, Board of Revenue while disposing of the revision petition has stated in his order that:-- "It became evident in the course of hearing of these cases that the work of consolidation of holdings in this estate had been done in a very unsatisfactory manner. The cardinal principle of forming the main plot of a right-holder as far as possible at a place where he held the bulk of his area prior to consolidation was honoured more in the breach than in observance. This naturally gave rise to a number of appeals and counter-appeals in the lower Court and has brought a sizable crop of revision petitions before me. In spite of this, I have resisted the temptation of remanding these proceedings to the lower Courts with the direction that the entire estate be consolidated afresh. To my mind such a course would have complicated the matter further. I have, therefore, conformed myself to redressing the main grievance of the affected-parties as best as I could without upsetting the Consolidation Scheme as a whole. I do, however, propose to call for the explanation of the A.C.O. And the C.O. Who were responsible for consolidating this Mauza with a view to ensuring that such abnormal performance is not repeated."
'It is contended by the learned counsel that the Board of Revenue itself came to the conclusion that there were serious irregularities committed during the course of consolidation, which was carried out in unsatisfactory manner contrary to the cardinal principle of forming the main plot of the right-holder at the place where the bulk of his land was situate, could not refuse to set aside the Scheme on wholly untenable grounds. It is, however, to be noticed that the consolidation in the present case had taken place in the year 1965, i.e, 25 years ago and it would not be conducive in the interest of justice to set aside the Scheme of consolidation at this belated stage especially when the other residents of the village are not parties to these petitions.
' Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has no objection, if it is directed that the lands in the respective possession of the parties at the time of the admission of the writ petition, i.e,, 24th March, 1967 shall remain with them. This appears to be a fair offer which is acceptable to the learned counsel for the respondents who too have joined in the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter he disposed of in the above terms.
' As a result of the above, these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the land in the respective possession of the parties as on 24th March, 1967 shall continue to be held by them. No order as to costs.