1. ' The facts are that Consolidation Scheme of Village Sekhawan, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 27-11-1978 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner, Mst. Ghulam Fatima challenged the order by way of an appeal which was partly allowed by the learned Collector (Consolidation) on 11-4- 1981. In consequence, Khata No,32/1-1 was partitioned and given to its owners according to their shares. The respondent, Charagh Muhammad, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 9-7-1981. Later on, second appeal by the respondent Charagh Muhammad, was also rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 6-4-1987. On 12-3-1989, an order was passed by the learned Collector holding that Khata No,32/1-1 would remain intact. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner which was accepted and the case was remanded to the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 12-7-1989. It was specifically directed that decision shall be given after spot inspection keeping in view the possession of the parties. In obedience to the order, the learned Collector visited the spot and partitioned the Khata according to the shares of the parties.
2. In the result, 3/5 share of the Khata was given to the respondent, Charagh Muhammad while the remaining 2/5 share was allotted to the petitioner, Ma. Ghulam Fatima, on 10-3-1990. This order was again assailed by way of an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 15-7-1990. It was observed that the parties are real brother and sister and that the land in question has been converted into residential and commercial units because it was situated on Muridke-Sheikhupura Road. It was noted that both the parties had already raised shops and houses on the plot in question. This finding was upheld by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, vide his order dated 23-1-1991.
2. It is contended that in presence of the earlier two orders dated 9-7-1981 and 6-4-1987, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) it was not within the powers of the learned Collector to have passed the impugned order dated 12-3-1989, because the said two orders had not been challenged before any higher forum and as such they had attained finality. It may be noticed that a finding of fact on the basis of evidence has been arrived at showing that the parties being real brother and sister have been given their due shares by competent authorities and that the land in question has already been converted into shops and houses. It is stated that as many as six shops and residential units have been made on the said land. Both the parties are living and doing their business on the land in question. It is evident that full justice has been done by the competent Authorities in allotting the property to its rightful share-holders in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel was asked to explain injustice which was done to the petitioner in the above circumstances but he was unable to do so. It is well settled that no writ can issue in aid of injustice.
4. Reference in this behalf may usefully be made to Tufail Muhammad and others v. Raja Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan and others PLD 1965 SC 269 and Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236. The impugned orders on the face of them appear to be just, fair and proper. There is, therefore, no substance in this Constitution petition which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.