MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.-The validity of the order of the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, dated 12.1.1984 is called in question in this Constitution petition.
2. The facts in brief are that Taj Din and others herein petitioners and Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Rafique and Mst. Safia Begum (herein respondents) were the owners of land in village Kot Pinchi Das, Tehsil Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura. The Revenue estate was subjected to consolidation proceedings. The Consolidation Scheme was sanctioned by the Consolidation Officer, wherein Khasra Nos.23&9 of Square No.150 were put into Consolidation Scheme of Taj Din and others. Against this order Muhammad Sadiq and others filed an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) without any success. The Collector (Consolidation) vide order dated 20.10.1979, rejected the appeal. The revision by the same respondents, was dismissed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, vide order dated 24.5.1980.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the a forenoted orders, respondents No.2 to 5 lodged Revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue. The learned Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.1.84 accepted the Revision petition, deleted Khasra Nos.23&9 of Square No.150 from Vanda Ishtemal of Taj Din and others and put it into the Vanda of Respondents No.2 to 5, Hence this Constitution petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition contended that the Revision petition was not competent and that the learned Member Board of Revenue in Revisional jurisdiction has set aside the order of the authorities below without any cogent reasons. No other point was urged.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned decision and submitted that the order passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue was in exercise of his authority under his Revisional jurisdiction under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960 (herein referred to as Ordinance) The order neither suffers from lack of jurisdiction nor from absence of jurisdiction. On the basis of this argument it was submitted with emphasis that this Constitution petition was not competent under Article 199 of the Constitution.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. Before I proceed to determine the respective contentions of the parties it will be appropriate to notice the finding of the learned Member Board of Revenue which runs as under:- "The main dispute is over Khasra Nos.2,3 and 9 of Square No.150. The petitioners contend that these Khasra numbers were owned and possessed by them and being situated near abadi-deh, were most valuable but in consolidation the same were given to the respondents without any justification.
The case of the respondents is that the Khasra numbers in dispute were included in their Wanda with the consent of the petitioners themselves and as such they are estopped to demand their return at this belated stage.
After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusing the record I am of the view that the petitioners had a preferential claim over the disputed khasra numbers which were owned and possessed by them and were most valuable as being situated near Abadi-deh. The respondents have not been able to show their better claim over these Khasra numbers..................................................................... "
7. It is apparent from the order that the aforesaid Khasra Numbers were in possession of respondents No.2 to 5 before the commencement of Consolidation Proceedings and that the disputed land was a valuable piece of land, it is a well settled principle of law that during Consolidation-proceedings, the previous possessions of the parties are looked into and are normally these possessions are adhered to.
8. The hierarchy under the Ordinance are the sole authorities in respect of making consolidation scheme. The matters falling under the Ordinance, are entirely within the discretion of Consolidation authorities. At the apex of this hierarchy is the Board of Revenue, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of Consolidation authorities unless and until it is shown that the orders by the authorities below are without jurisdiction, or is in excess of jurisdiction or in defiance of any law.
No such exercise was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He did not dispute that the land was in possession of respondent No.2 before the Consolidation; that the land was valuable piece of land. Therefore, I have no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the order of Member Board of Revenue is just, equitable and in consonance with the provisions of the Ordinance. It does not suffer from any defect warranting the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. In result I do not find any merit it this writ petition which is dismissed. The petitioners shall bear the costs of proceedings before this Court.