' CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J.---This judgment will dispose of LPAs. Nos.142 and 143 of 1972 inasmuch as both the appeals arise out of a consolidated judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 14-3-1972 rendered in Writ Petitions Nos. 928 and 929 of 1970.
2. Briefly stated facts of this case out of which both those LPAs. Have arisen are that in the year 1970 the consolidation proceedings were taken by A.C.O. Under the provision of section 3(2) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 in the revenue estate of village Chohan, Tehsil Chakwal, District Jhelum. The consolidation scheme was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer vide order, dated 31-8-1968 under the provision of section 10(3) of the Ordinance. In pursuance of the scheme the appellant as well as the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in L.PA. No, 142 and respondents Nos.1 to 5 in L.PA. No,143 of 1972 were allocated the land on the basis of pre-consolidation entitlement of the parties. The register scheme shows that at the time of confirmation of the scheme one Akhtar Ali who is allegedly an attorney of Brig. Saadat appellant in L.PA. No, 142 of 1972 and was a co-sharer in the Khata, which had been partitioned during the consolidation proceedings, had accepted the scheme in question on behalf of the appellant and had signed the register scheme. Aggrieved of these schemes two time-barred appeals were filed before the Collector, Consolidation, one by Brig. Saadat All and the other by Mst. Munawar Begum the appellant in the other case. The learned A.D.C.(G) in exercise of his powers as Collector vide order, dated 20-9-1969 condoned the delay, accepted both the appeals and modified the scheme of the parties whereby Khasra numbers which were claimed by the appellants as being their previous property were directed to be restored to, them. This order was challenged in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner Consolidation in both the cases which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner. This order was further challenged in revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The revision petitions were dismissed. The orders passed by the Collector and upheld in appeal and revision by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Member, Board of Revenue were challenged in Writ Petitions Nos. 928 and 929 of 1970. Both the writ petitions were heard by his Lordship Mr. Justice Javaid Iqbal, J. (as his Lordship then was) and were accepted vide consolidated order, dated 14-3-1972, and the orders passed by the A.D.C. (C)/Collector were set aside. Learned Single Judge held that as the appeals before the Collector were barred by time, Abid Hussain, a necessary party was not impleaded and the scheme of Brig. Saadat All had been sanctioned with consent given by his attorney who was also a co-sharer in the Khata. The learned A.D.C.(G)/Collector had not lawful authority to condone the delay, accept the appeal and to set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer challenged in the appeals. This order has been challenged in these two L.P.As.
3. Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant in both the appeals whereas Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in L.PA. No, 142 of 1972. None has appeared on behalf of respondents in L.PA. No, 143 of 1972, hence, they have been proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order passed by the Collector Consolidation having been upheld up to the level of Member, Board of Revenue in hierarchy provided under the provision of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 was not amenable to the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the determination of question of propriety, legality and correctness of the consolidation scheme falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities appointed under the provisions of Conolidation Laws and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous in law.
In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on cases of Ghulam Qadir v.
Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCMR 292, Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139, Muhammad Khan and another v.
Pehalwan and others 1983 CLC 404; Sardar Bibi and others v. Shakila Bibi and others 1983 CLC 1668, Wall Dad v. Muhammad Khan etc. 1988 CLC 2144, Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others 1989 SCMR 1096 and Barkat Ali and others v. Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahorb and others 1989 SCMR 1732. Learned counsel has further contended that the delay having been condoned by the Collector which was a Court of competent jurisdiction, the High Court could not have interfered with in exercise of the discretion. Learned counsel has further contended that Akhtar Ali who has signed the scheme was not lawfully appointed as attorney of Brig. Saadat Ali appellant inasmuch as the power of attorney on the basis whereof said Akhtar Ali acted as an attorney on behalf of the appellant having not been signed by the Commanding Officer could not confer upon him any authority to act on behalf of the appellant in pursuance of the provision of Order 28 of C.P.C. And that Abid All about whom it is stated that he was a necessary party and was not impleaded as such, had appeared in the High Court and had stated that he surrenders his land in favour of the appellant and, therefore, his non-impleadment was immaterial and could not have resulted in acceptance of the writ petition in view of his statement. According to the learned counsel at any rate nobody accepted the scheme on behalf of Mst. Munawar Begum whose Attorney Akhtar All definitely was not.
' Learned counsel has contended that Akhtar All was also not a co-sharer inasmuch as Khata had been partitioned during the consolidation proceedings and, therefore, he could not have accepted the scheme on behalf of the appellant as being a co-sharer.
5. As against the above arguments, addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. The appeals were patently barred by time, therefore, the learned Collector had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The appeals were not properly constituted inasmuch as a necessary party had not been impleaded and that the scheme having been sanctioned with consent, no appeal lay to the Collector and, therefore, the orders impugned in writ petition being illegal and without a lawful authority have lawfully been set aside by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel has further contended that in case any interference is made at this stage, it will create a lot many complications inasmuch as whole village will be disturbed and the changed possessions since long shall have to be restored, therefore, the appeals may be dismissed.
6. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record and the cases cited at bar. It is an established legal proposition which is supported by the judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until it is a case of decrease of entitlement of a party. In the cases in hand the dispute being relatable to the situation of the land which had been allocated to the parties respectively in accordance with the provision of Ordinance, 1960 read with scheme made thereunder, the order impugned in writ petition having been passed in exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities could not have been interfered with.
7. The grounds given by the learned Single Judge, for interfering with the order passed by the learned Collector are also not maintainable in law. The Collector Consolidation being a Court of competent jurisdiction had the jurisdiction to condone the delay which was condoned for cogent reasons. As per law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is not competent to interfere with the discretion so exercised. Reliance in this behalf is placed on cases of Mumtaz Khan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another PLD 1966 SC 276, Saeeduddin Ahmed Naqvi v. Abdul Ghafoor 1977 SCMR 306, National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Muhammad Asif Ahmed and 2 others PLD 1985 Quetta 100 and Nek Muhammad v. A.C., Jhelum and others 1986 SCMR 1493 and Allah Yar Khan v.
Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1986 SCMR 1957. The objection with regard to the non-impleadment of Abid Hussain as a necessary party also stood vanished when Abid Hussain himself appeared before the High Court and made a statement that he has no objection to the order passed by the Collector. As the petitioner before High Court was not prejudiced by the non-impleadment of Abid Hussain as a party to the appeal, no interference with the order passed by the Collector was possible. Even otherwise non-joinder of a party is not fatal to the lis. The consolidation scheme has incorrectly been held to be sanctioned with consent of both the appellants. Akhtar All who appeared as attorney on behalf of Brig. Saadat All alone did not possess valid power of attorney in his favour and, therefore, he could not have acted and accepted the scheme on behalf of the appellant. He was admittedly not a party on behalf of Mst. Munawar Begum the appellant in the connected scheme. He was also not a co-sharer in Khata as his Khata had been partitioned during the same consolidation proceedings, therefore, he could not have given consent on behalf of the appellant. Consequently the scheme in question cannot be said to have been confirmed with consent and as such this ground was also not available to the learned Single Judge for striking down the order passed by the Collector in appeal. Even otherwise there is no provision in Consolidation laws which is equivalent to the provision of section 96 of C.P.C. Which specifically bars the filing of an appeal against a consent order. Under the Consolidation Laws any person who as aggrieved by an order can file an appeal and, therefore, the appeal was entertained by the Collector quite in accordance with law and, therefore, no objection could have been raised thereto on the basis of nature of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer which was said to have been passed with consent. Even otherwise it is a matter of common knowledge that in consolidation cases usually the signatures/thumb-impressions of the right holder are taken by the Consolidation Staff on their register even prior to making of entries therein. Initially Khatuni Kham is issued and on the basis thereof entries are made in the register scheme wherein the order of confirmation of the scheme is passed subsequently. Consequently, the order passed by the Collector was not liable to be interfered with on this ground as Nell. Argument of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the matter is pending since long, therefore, interference by this Court in appeal will create complications is misconceived. These LPAs are pending since 1972. It is not the fault of the appellants that they have not been heard earlier, therefore, entitlement of the appellant cannot be refused merely for the reasons that some consequence will ensue as a result of acceptance of these LPAs. We do not feel that any unforeseen consequences will ensue if the LPAs are accepted. The only result would be that the order passed by the Collector which was struck down by the High Court shall hold the field. We have gone through the record and have seen that the dispute is only inter se the parties to these appeals and right-holders of the village will not be affected as a result of decision of these LPAs.
' Resultantly, we accept these LPAs. And set aside the order, dated 14-3-1972 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, with the result that the order impugned in the writ petitions, dated 20-9- 1969 passed by A.D.C.(C)/Collector accepting the appeals upheld by the Board of Revenue, shall stand restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs.