1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.--The dispute in this case is about the consolidation proceedings in village Bheelo Mahar, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. A scheme was framed and confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the 29th February 1964. This scheme was challenged before the Collector in appeal by the respondents Nos. 2 to 7, who by order dated the 13th October 1964, accepted the appeal and made certain amendments in the said scheme. The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the Additional Commissioner which was accepted. The learned Officer set aside the order of the Collector on the ground that the scheme was based on the exchange of certain lands by certain persons who were not parties before him, and there was no justification in making any modifications in the scheme. He further held that the Collector should have not interfered in the appeal because it was barred by time. This led the respondents to file two revision petitions before the Member Board of Revenue. The learned Member Board of Revenue, by order dated the 20th January 1968, accepted both the revision petitions. He came to the conclusion that the holdings of the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 were near the village abadi and the metalled road, but none of them was given any area near the village. He further held that the rights of the said respondents could not be ignored on the basis of the statements made by Habib and Rehmat and others who were not parties to the present case. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 300 of 1968 in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. The learned Judges of the High Court by order dated the 22nd October 1968, dismissed it in limine. This decision is being challenged in this petition for Special Leave to Appeal.
2. PLD 1969 SC 167) lays down that the authority concerned should be conscious of the question o limitation before deciding the proceedings pending before it.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the scheme sanctioned by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the 29th February 1964. He urged that no objection was raised by anybody and on this basis contended that it was an agreed scheme.. This contention has not impressed us.
4. The order dated the 29th February 1964, shows that some objections were raised by some of the parties on the previous occasions. They were resolved and thereafter no objection was raised. This, in our opinion, does not mean that the scheme was agreed one. The last contention of the learned counsel has also not impressed us. The statements relied upon of the right-holders were of those persons who were not parties to the proceedings before the Collector or the Additional Com-- missioner. In these circumstances the Member Board of Revenue was perfectly justified in holding that no reliance could be placed on these statements for upholding the original scheme.
5. We, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed.