' The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the Consolidation proceedings in village Kot Ghumman Dakhli Gidhian, Tehsil Narowal (now district) were confirmed vide order dated 28-6-1977. The respondent No,1 assailed this Scheme through an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation), who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22-3-1979, which order was impugned through second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who accepted the appeal vide order dated 12-12-1981 and remanded the case to the Collector (Cons.), Sialkot with the direction to look into the grievance of the respondent No,1 whether her holding has been decreased in the consolidation proceedings. The Collector after hearing the parties at length accepted the appeal vide order dated 19-8-1984 and remanded the case to the consolidation staff to make amendment in the Khatas of the parties. The respondent No,1 still not feeling satisfied filed second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who dismissed the same vide order dated 18-5-1985 which order was assailed in revision petition before the respondent No, 4, who proceeded to accept revision petition and modified the Khatas of the petitioner and respondent No,
1. The result was that the respondent No, 1 was given land measuring 3 Kanals, 1 Marla from Khasra No,1117. Hence present writ petition, which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that Khasra No, 1117 measuring 3 Kanals, 1 Marla has been on the wrong and illegal assumption that the same belonged to the respondent No, 1 excluded from Khata of the petitioner. He with reference to Annexure 'A' argued that this Khasra number was never owned by the respondent No,
1. It is added that since the respondent No, 4 proceeded on surmises and conjectures, therefore, writ petition is competent. The learned counsel, in this behalf, has referred to Khushi Muhammad v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (1988 CLC 2260), Ghazanfar All and others v. Member, Board of Revenue (1988 SCM R 1687) and Haji Allah Wisaya, etc. v. Member, Board of Revenue, etc. (NLR 1988 UC 60).
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 argued that originally there were Khasra Nos. 946, 947 and 948 which belonged to Ghulam Muhammad, petitioner and respondent No, 1 respectively and in the next settlement these Khasra numbers were joined and new number (Khasra No, 1284) was assigned to them. Thereafter, Khasra No, 1117 was assigned to this Khasra number in the consolidation. It is, therefore, submitted that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent No, 1 was never in possession of Khasra No, 1117 is against facts on record. It is added that this Court cannot grant specific numbers to the parties in Constitutional petition. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v.
Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139).
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. The simple question for determination is whether the respondent No, 1 owned and possessed Khasra No, 1117 as held by the respondent No, 4 and maintained by the learned counsel for the said respondent. The perusal of Annexure 'A' the only document available on record shows that actually there were three Khasra Nos. 947, 948 and 949 in all measuring 19 Kanals 10 Marlas. Out of the parts of these Khasra numbers Khasra No, 1284 was carved out, part of which went to the petitioner and respondent No,
1. The Khasra No, 1284
(min) in possession of the petitioner was re-numbered as 1117 while Khasras Nos. 1284 min and 1285 min which were in possession of respondent No, 1, renumbered as 1145, which is in possession of the respondent No,1. It is evident from the above resume that in spite of the change of Khasra numbers parties maintained their possession and the land forming part of the Khasra No, 1117 was never in possession of the respondent No, 1, therefore, the basis on which the respondent No 4 has given this Khasra to the respondent No, 1 is incorrect as such the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the respondent No, 4 dated 27-8-1987 is set aside with no order as to costs. The result in that the revision of the respondent No,1 before respondent No, 4 would be deemed pending and the respondent No, 4 is directed to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.