JUDGMENT CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN J.- Briefly stated facts of the case are that Consolidation Scheme of the village Kaloke, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation Ordinance, 1960. Aggrieved of the above scheme, petitioner, filed an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) who ride order dated 23.6.85 accepted the same and remanded the case to the Consolidation Office, Sialkot with the direction to decide the case afresh. In post remand proceedings, C.O. Submitted a proposal to the Collector who vide his order dated 15.12.1985 accepted this proposal and amended the wandas of the parties. This order was challenged before Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Gulfanwala Division who, accepted the same vide order dated 12.1986 and again amended the "wandas" of the parties. The petitioner still dissatisfied with the order, filed a revision petition before Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.12.1986. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 908 of 1987 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which was accepted vide order dated 9.5.1988 and the case was remanded to the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue for decision thereof afresh, particularly, with reference to the allegation of reduction of the holding of the petitioners by 6 Kanal. In post remand proceedings, learned M.B.R, had again dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 5.6.1993, on the grounds that the time during the course of proceedings before this court; and that is not tenable in view of the fact that No. 1262 to 1265 had earlier been transferred therefore, petitioner cannot claim any entitlement in lieu thereof. Aggrieved of this order, this writ petition has been filed before this Court.
2. Malik Abdul Wahid, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Mr. Shabir Hussain Dhilun, Advocate had appeared on behalf of the respondent. Arguments have been heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that entitlement of the petitioner has reduced by 16 kanals hence order of Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue is illegal In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on case cl "Najabat Ali v. Bashir Ahmad" (PLD 1987 SC 16). On the other had, learned counsel for the respondent stated that findings of fact rendered by the Consolidation authorities are not liable to be interfere with in this petition and as a matter of fact the entitlement of the petitioner has not at been reduced who has been accommodated in accord with their entitlement sence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. There is no cavil with the proposition as held in case of Najabat Ali supra that in case consolidation scheme is offensive of the statute this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction can interfere therewith, however, in this case after perusal of the record and going through the orders passed by the consolidation authorities, I find that the entitlement of the petitioner has not at-all been reduced. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the course of consolidation proceedings that total of the holding some time increases and some time decreases due to the categorisation of the land on the basis whereof the entitlement of the right holder is determined and land is distributed during the course of consolidation proceedings. In the case in had, the petitioners have been given land exactly in accordance with their entitlement Even otherwise, it has never been the case of the petitioner, before any of the lower Consolidation authorities except this Court and learned M.B.R, that the entitlement of the petitioner has been reduced. Main grievances pressed have been satisfied by die Additional Commissioner, who had accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner. Revision petition before the MBR was misconceived and, hence has rightly been dismissed.
4. As regards the grievance relatable to the allocation of land during consolidation proceedings, this court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction does not interfere as held in cases of "Brig. Sadaat Ali Shah v. Muhammad Hanif (PLD 1993 Lahore 694) and "Muhammad Hussain Munir vs. Sikandar and others" (PLD 1974 SC 139).
5. Resultantly, I see no force in this writ petition, hence the same is dismissed.