' The petitioner has called in question the validity of orders, dated 29-6-1979, 15-2-1981, 6-4-1982, 15-9-1982, 12-2-1984 passed by respondents Nos. 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
2. The dispute regarding the consolidation of land has been finally settled between the petitioner and respondent No,5, who are real brother, in that, an area of two acres has been equally divided into eight Kanals each to the petitioner as well as respondent No,5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the ground of certain errors of fact inasmuch as the land which the petitioner had developed was parcelled away to the other side.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, as well as the learned counsel for respondent No,5 have stated hat the impugned orders are just and fair whereby the consolidation of the land in two equal plots have been made in favour of the petitioner and respondent No,5 to which no exception could be taken.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The question of reduction or increase of plots during the process of consolidation is essentially a matter which falls within the domain of the Consolidation Authorities. Ordinarily, the writ jurisdiction is not attracted unless some glaring injustice or errors of law affecting the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities is pointed out. None of all these conditions for interference had been shown to exist. In such-like cases, the writ jurisdiction is not appropriate remedy. See the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v.
Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139).
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.