' Consolidation Scheme pertaining to Village Mailowal, District Sargodha was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 22-4-1984 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Ghulam Hussain petitioner challenged the propriety of the said order by filing an appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) with some amendments in the Khata of the parties. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 31-7-1984 before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidations) which too was dismissed on 9-12-1984. On revision learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue proceeded to observe that appeal of the petitioner was decided on the basis of a mutual compromise and as such the petitioner had no right now to take a turn to challenge the consent order passed in that behalf. Learned counsel contends that lesser land has been given to the petitioner as a result of the consolidations which resulted in injustice to him. He stresses that the petitioner had a `Dera' built by him on the land and after consolidations operations he had been deprived of such a dwelling without being given any compensation.
2. Learned AA.-G. Defends the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities by contending that consent of the parties was obtained while deciding the case and as such the consent order was passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons )on 31-7-1984. He submits that the writ petition is not competent inasmu ch as a consent order was passed which was confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue. He also says that finding of fact has been arrived at by the learned Consolidation Authorities. It is argued by the learned counsel with vehemence that petitioner never entered into a compromise with the contesting respondents at any stage of the litigation.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have perused the record. Learned Collector on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, proceeded to pass the order with some amendments. This consent order was upheld by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and the learned Member (Judi.), Board of Revenue. Learned counsel was unable to disclose as to how much land was held by the petitioner after consolidation and how much was his land before consolidation operations commenced. He is not sure about the exact area in the neighbourhood of the Dera in question. Learned counsel says that 9 Kanals and 11 Marlas of land surrounding the 'Dem' was allotted to the respondents. Learned counsel does not admit the execution of any compromise of the petitioner with the respondents. However, the impugned orders demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that there was a compromise between the parties, regarding the distribution of the land in question amongst the land-owneRs, This is thus a finding of fact having been arrived at by the competent forums that the parties entered into a compromise over the controversy. Learned counsel was unable to point out as to what injustice had been done to the petitioner. The orders of the Consolidation Authorities appear to be just proper and have been passed according to law. A disputed question of fact has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which cannot be settled in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the Constitutional petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.