The consolidation of Revenue Estate Chheney Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala was confirmed on 6-8-1976 with respect to the land falling to the Wanda of Yasin respondent No.5. That land was purchased by Farzand Ali petitioner who obtained its possession. The exception was taken by Naseeb Ullah respondent No.4 who moved the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector, Gujranwala through the filing of the appeal on 22-4-1979 wherein he took up the stand that he was not summoned at the time of the confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme and was not heard and that Parchi consolidation was handed over to him on 16-4-1979.
He maintained that an area of 64 Kanals has been decreased from the area originally owned by him. The appeal was not contested by the petitioner as the vendee of the relevant landwhich was accepted ex parte by making amendment in the scheme in favour of Naseeb Ullah respondent with the reasoning that he has been deprived of vast area and that injustice has been done to him.
Against the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector the appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division, Lahore which was dismissed on 16-5-1982. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore on 10-4-1983.
2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition wherein hetook the stand that the Consolidation Scheme was prepared with the consent of Naseeb Ullah respondent who could not take up the contrary stand, thatthe appeal was preferred by him before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) with a delay of more than two years whichwas barred by time, that he was not served, that the ex parte order in the first appeal had no legal force and that he had obtained the possession of the land after the execution of the Consolidation Scheme, in favour of its owner Yasin respondent No.5. This writ petition has been resisted by Naseeb Ullah respondent who denied the assertions made in the writ petition and took up the stand that justice was administered at the end of the Revenue hierarchy where his grievance was considered and that the writ petition has no merit.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and made an nalysis of their respective contentions. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the possession of the land was transferred to the petitioner, that no injustice was administered to the adverse party and that the appeal preferred before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) by Naseeb Ullah respondent was barred by time. On the contrary learned counsel for the said respondent took up the stand that the questions of facts have been determined by the Revenue hierarchy in favour of Naseeb Ullah respondent up to the level of the Board of Revenue, Punjab and that the matter cannot be reopened. I am of the view that it is not proper to interfere in the working of the Revenue hierarchy in the consolidation field in the writ jurisdiction. There is nothing on record to make out that Naseeb Ullah respondent No.4 consented to the Consolidation Scheme and that he was present on the date of its confirmation on 6-8-1976. In the appeal preferred by him the limitation was condoned by the competent authority and there is no material or circumstance before this Court to interfere in the exercise of the said discretion. Since the limitation was condoned from the First Appellate Court up to the Board of Revenue, this aspect of the matter need not be given the weight. The factual aspects have been considered by the Revenue Authorities up to the level of the Board of Revenue which have been decided in favour of the contesting respondent. In the detailed order, dated 16-5-1982 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division, Lahore the dispute has been disposed of keeping in view its all the aspects. Thereafter, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab has also affirmed the aforesaid judgment. In this view of the matter it is not fair and just C to take into account the factual aspect of the matter at the end of this Constitutional Court while taking up this, writ petition. As held in Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCM R 292 in a matter of consolidation of holdings question as to which field number should have been given to the parties is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and that the High Court in writ jurisdiction could not sit in judgment against the decisions of Revenue Authorities in such matters. Even if the delivery of the possession has taken place that would not make any difference with respect to conclusion finally drawn by me as expressed above.
The mere long pendency of the writ petition has no effect in favour of the petitioner as the matter.
Has to be taken, considered and disposed of from the date of the final judgment, dated 10-4-1983 passed by the learned D Member, Board of Revenue and the date of filing of the writ petition during the year 1983.
4. I, therefore, hold that the impugned decisions of the Revenue Authorities have to prevail.
5.For what has been said above, I see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same with costs..