' The facts are that the Consolidation Scheme of Village Matta Virkan, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was confirmed by the learned Consolidation Officer on 31-12-1975. Against this order a revision was moved by Salam Din, the petitioner. Similarly another appeal was filed by Muhammad Yameen before the learned Collector Consolidation. The aforesaid appeals were heard and accepted by the learned Collector (Consolidation) on 30-9-1976 and the case were remanded for fresh decision. Two revision petitions were filed by the aggrieved persons challenging the validity of the order of the learned Collector (Consolidation) before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which were dismissed by him on 19-10-1977. Further revisions were also filed before the Member Board of Revenue which also met the same fate on 12-9-1979. A Constitutional petition was instituted before this Court which was dismissed in limine on 18-11-1981. In other words, the order of the learned Collector dated 30-9-1976 whereby he remanded the case was upheld by this Court. On remand, the learned Collector passed an order on 2-3-1981 whereby certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties were made. The case of the parties ultimately came up for its hearing before the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue who vide his order, dated 9-7-1984 directed that the wandas of the parties as confirmed in the original consolidation scheme dated 31-12-1975 would be restored.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Collector decided the case in favour of the petitioner on 2-3-1981 and that this order was allowed to remain intact by the learned Additional Commissioner. He states that this order was ignored by the learned Member, Board of Revenue while passing the impugned order on 9-7-1984. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners did not give their consent to the restoration of original consolidation scheme as was pointed out by the learned Member. He, therefore, maintains that the impugned order being a nullity in law may be set aside in the interest of justice. The case of Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent is that the original consolidation scheme was restored by the learned Member on the basis of a compromise having been entered into by both the parties.
He argues that petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the arrangement made by the learned Member with their voluntary consent. According to the learned counsel, even the original scheme of the parties was made by the Consolidation authority with their consent. He further says that no injustice was done to the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record with care. I hold the view that order dated 9-7-1984 passed by the learned Member was in fact a consent order. The impugned order shows that both the parties agreed before the learned Member that their original allotment of land having been made by the Consolidation authority might be restored. It is evident that the parties resolved their differences over the distribution of their holdings during consolidation operation amicably. Both the parties were accommodated by giving them the land of their choice. The impugned order, therefore, appears to be just, fair and proper. This being so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any objection at this stage to the consent order already passed by the competent Consolidation authority. The Constitutional petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.