' This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 13-6-1981 of the Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue rejecting the revision petition of petitioners and maintaining orders of the lower Courts, restoring the disputed land in favour of respondent No, 4 Mst. Anwar Begam.
2. Briefly stated, consolidated scheme of Village Chhina, Tehsil Hafizabad was confirmed by A.C.O.
On 6-8-1976 where land measuring 89 Kanals was given to petitioners as against their entitlement of 17 Kanals 11 Marlas. The relevant respondent, aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal which was accepted by the Collector on 7-3-1979 and this order was maintained by the Additional Commissioner on 14-11-1979 as also by the Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue on 13-6-1981. All these orders are impugned in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the appeal of respondent No, 4 was barred by time and, therefore, all subsequent orders are of no legal value. He further submitted that this disputed land given to petitioners by the A.C.O. On 6-8-1976 could not be restored in favour of respondent No, 4.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and am of the opinion that there is no force in any one of the contentions raised by him. As to the question of limitation, learned Member, Board of Revenue took note of the facts that respondent was not present at the time of confirmation of scheme and as soon as she came to know, she filed an appeal before the Collector. The plea of petitioners, that the husband of respondent signed the scheme, was repelled by the Member, Board of Revenue. As to the other plea, the issue has been fully discussed by all the Courts which came to the conclusion that petitioners were not entitled to the land owned by respondent. It was also observed that the entitlement of petitioner was 17 Kanals as against which they cannot be given much more area under the ownership of respondent. The entitlement of respondent was 119 Kanals but she was only given 56 Kanals and this injustice was remedied subsequently and the entire land under her ownership was restored to her. On the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference of this Court in the impugned order.
5. It is correct, as stated by the learned counsel that petitioners owned 17 Kanals 11 Marlas of Class I land but they have been given Class II land in Khasra Nos. 368, 369 and 371 measuring 21 Kanals 17 Marlas and in this way, they have been compensated.
6. Learned counsel lastly contended that the land of petitioners has been given to one Muhammad Ismail. However, petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner where said Muhammad Ismail was not a party and the latter was only impleaded as one of the respondents before the Revisional Court. In view of this, learned Member, Board of Revenue refused to grant any relief to the petitioners as against Muhammad Ismail holding that "no injustice appears to have been done to the petitioners who have already been adequately accommodated by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)". This finding is not open to any exception.
7. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs.