MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petition Nos. 3095 and 3096-L of 2000 as questions of law and facts are common in both of them.
2. These petitions have arisen from a matter relating to consolidation of land. In the consolidation scheme sanctioned originally on 18.9.1968, land comprising. Khasra No. 1974 was given to the petitioners. The respondents filed appeal before the Collector which was accepted on 6.10.1987.
Readjustment was made regarding entitlement of the parties without reducing number of plots given to each of them by carving out path and adjusting the entitlement of the parties. The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed further appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed by him by order dated 18.2.1998. They filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue which too was dismissed on 13.3.1990 against which Writ Petition No. 2146/1990 filed by the petitioners before the Lahore High Court was accepted through judgment dated 31.3.1991 on the technical ground that appeal filed by the respondents against the original order of confirmation of consolidation was time barred. Against this judgment, the respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 284/1991 before this Court which was accepted through judgment dated 17.3.1992, judgment dated 31.3.1991 of the Lahore High Court was set aside and the case remanded to the said Court for decision of the Constitutional petition of the petitioners on merits instead of decision on the question of Limitation. After remand of the case, the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2000 has dismissed the said Writ Petition by maintaining the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the member Board of Revenue regarding adjustment of entitlement of the parties.
3.. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly argued that in Khasra No. 1974 in dispute, the petitioners had Dera and had also installed tubewell. He when asked to refer to any of the grounds before the Additional commissioner and Board of Revenue, he' was unable to refer to the grounds of appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner as copy of the same has not ben placed on the record. In the grounds of revision petition before the Board of Revenue, it was stated that the petitioner had Dera and other installation on Khasra Nos. 1966, 1968 and 1971 and 1978 and nothing was stated that they were in Khasra No. 1974. The Additional Commissioner has dealt with matter of distribution of the land comprising Khasra No. 1974 among the parties on equitable grounds by making addition alterations about the old path and carving out new path and giving benefit by using front of their lands at the juncture which fell in Khasra No. 1974 which has been upheld by the Member Board of Revenue.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the orders passed by the Additional commissioner and the Board of Revenue and the High Court are against the spirit of the Consolidation laws or suffered from any legal infirmity.
5. The adjustment of the entitlement of both the parties was made justly and fairly and no injustice had been done.
6. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and .