' Through this Constitutional petition Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others, petitioners, have challenged the order dated 6-3-1984 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector, Sialkot, whereby he dismissed a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners as being incompetent.
2. The petitioners claimed to be allottees of pre-consolidation Khasra No, 1172 measuring 19 Kanals and 18 Marlas which was allotted to them on 11-12-1961 at Khata No,
25. Subsequently, as a result of the consolidation in the village, petitioners had grievance with regard to the land which was allotted to the respondents. Case of the petitioners was that land in lieu of Khasra No, 1172 should have been given to them instead of the respondents and further that the entitlement has illegally been reduced. Learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land) vide Annexure El of the writ petition held that Khasra No,1172 was allotted to the petitioners and has never been cancelled. It was further intimated by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) that the learned Member, Board of Revenue has been pleased to order and after confirmation of the allotment, the allottees of the land are owners and they should seek redress of their grievance, before the competent authorities i,e, Consolidation Officer or the District Collector as the case may be. This letter was written by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner
(Land) to the A.D.C. (C) in reference to the proceedings pending before him on the basis of application filed by the petitioneRs,
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are not aggrieved of the consolidation proceedings and in fact they are aggrieved of the entries in the revenue record which are to be corrected in the light of the order/direction issued by the learned Member, Board of Revenue by the District Collector. Exact argument of the learned counsel is that once the learned A.D.C. (C) had held that he is not a notified officer, he should not have dismissed the application and should have rather referred the matter to the District Collector for correction of the record.
When asked as to why the petitioners themselves cannot move the learned District Collector for the correction of the revenue record, learned counsel for the petitioners states that it will cause a lot of delay and therefore a direction should be issued in this writ petition that the revenue record should be corrected by the learned District Collector. Learned counsel, however, admits that the application before the A.D.C. (C) was not competent inasmuch as he was neither a Notified Officer nor the grievance of the petitioners related to the consolidation proceedings.
4. In view of the above position taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned A.D.C. (C) which is to the effect that the application filed by the petitioners is dismissed as being incompetent and the petitioners are entitled to seek their remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, however, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek their remedy before any Court/Authority of competent jurisdiction.