1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The unsuccessful writ petitioners in a consolidation matter have sought leave to appeal; against the following order of dismissal of the writ petition:- "The petitioners are aggrieved by the withdrawal of two khasras from their allotments during the course of the consolidation of holdings. I am afraid the distribution of land is not a matter for the High Court to consider in writ jurisdiction. See Muhammad Hussain Monir v. Sikandar etc. (PLD 1974 SC 139), Ghulam Qadir v. M.B.R. (1970 SCMR 292) and Amir Din v. Muhammad Malik (1981 SCMR 804)."
2. Learned counsel has not disputed the reasoning of the High Court in so far as the merits are concerned. However, he has contended that there were two matters pending before the Board of Revenue. In an earlier round of litigation the respondents' petition was dismissed. But the matter was remanded on acceptance of petitioners' case. However the lower Consolidation Authorities did not give effect to the dismissal of the respondents' petition by the Board of Revenue. He further argued that this question was agitated before the Board of Revenue in the second round but a learned Member after taking due note of it did not accept the petitioners' revision.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel in support of the technical plea raised by him we are satisfied that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue applied mind to the merits of the case and came to definite conclusion that the orders impugned before him were unexceptionable. We have no reason to differ with this assessm ent on merits and the High Court's approach in refusing to grant relief to the petitioners in writ jurisdiction is also beyond question. That being so, there is no merit in this petition, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.