' This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 16-5-1981 of the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore refusing to make certain correction in the order dated 22-6-1965 passed by his predecessor.
2. Brief facts of the case are that there was a dispute regarding consolidation of land and Shera, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, filed an appeal which was decided by order dated 2- 10-1963 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, allocating Khasra Nos,21, 22 and 23 of Square No,4 in his favour. Killa Nos,1, 2, 3 of Square No,5 were given to Noor Din present petitioner, who filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue and the same was accepted by order dated 22-6-1965. The operative part of the said order is as under:-- "I therefore direct that Killa Nos,21, 22 and 23 (part of Sqr. 24) should be withdrawn from the Khata of the respondents and be given to the petitioner who is the original owner of this land. In return the petitioner will surrender Killas Nos,1, 2 and 3 (part of Sqr. No,5) which will go to the respondents."
' Then after several years the present petitioner filed an application before the Member, Board of Revenue with the request that he had been given Killas Nos,21, 22, 23 of Sqr. No,4 but it has been inadvertently written as Sqr. No,24 and that necessary correction be made. This application was rejected by the Member, B.O.R. Vide his order dated 16-5-1981 for the reason that the applicant should not have slept over his right and the correction cannot be made at a belated stage. This order is impugned in this petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the disputed Killas Nos,21, 22 and 23 of Square No,4 had been allotted to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been availing remedy in the wrong forums and as he had been allotted Killas Nos,21, 22, 23 of Square No,4, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the record of ownership and that the petitioner could not have been non-suited on the ground of belated application. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the disputed Khasra numbers of Square No,4 have been allotted to the respondents but he has not produced the original order passed by any Consolidation Authority to substantiate his claim. It is apparent from the initial order dated 2-10-1963 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha that Killas Nos,21, 22 and 23 of Square No,4 were at one time given to the respondents but on appeal the same Khasra numbers were given to the petitioner but these were described as part of Square No,24.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find that the learned Member, Board of Revenue could not have rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay because the matter l A pertains to the ownership of the land and he could have exercised his jurisdiction and decide the case on merits. In view of this, the impugned order dated 16-5-1981 of the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to him for deciding the same afresh on merits to find out if the petitioner has been allotted Khasras Nos,21, 22 and 23 as part of Square No, 4 or Square No,24. This will be ascertained after hearing both the parties. There is no order as to costs.