Order of the Collector (Consolidation) Gujranwala, dated 15-6-1992, of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Gujranwala. dated 17-11-1992, order, dated 7-11-1993 and of 30-4-1997 passed by the learned. Member Board of Revenue, which all had been against the petitioners, have been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
In order to avoid prolixity and for the sake of brevity the detailed reference to earlier round of litigation in the departmental hierarchy is not being mentioned. Suffice it to observe that the dispute between the co-sharers ranges around the land, which admittedly is situated in the vicinity of G.T. Road and facing it and has, thus, become extremely valuable. It is their endeavour to get as much of the same as possibly they could. Out of the joint Khata about 127 Kanals of land is situated along the G.T. Road. It was order, dated 15-6-1992 passed by the Collector (Consolidation) in pursuance of the remand that Muhammad Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos,4 to 8 was allocated 16 Kanals of land alongside the G.T. Road. This order was appealed against by the petitioners which appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Gujranwala on 17-11-1992. A revision petition was, then, filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue on 7-11-1993. A review petition was, then, filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue on 30-4-1997.
2. Assailing these orders, it is contended by the learned counsel that land facing G.T. Road has been given to the respondents more than it was due to them. From the respondents' side, only respondent No,14 is represented whereas rest of the respondents are not represented. The petition has, however, been heard ex parte qua them.
3. From the perusal of the record and the orders of the authorities passed in this case and after hearing the learned counsel, it has become abundantly clear that the parties were co-sharers.
There is no grievance that the entitlement of the petitioners have in any manner been reduced or affected. The dispute only as noted above, is with regard to the allocation of land facing G.T. Road which according to the learned counsel has become extremely valuable due to its location and appreciation of prices. Be that as it may, the respondents were totally denied of any land alongside the G.T. Road in the original scheme of consolidation. In order to rectify this in equity and injustice for which they have been clamoring throughout, the Collector (Consolidation) vide his order, dated 15-6-1992 on perusal of the relevant record, made amendments and adjustments in the allocations by giving 16 Kanals of land to the respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner before whom the petitioners had filed an appeal, again on consideration of the relevant record maintained the order of the Collector. The perusal of the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue, dated 7-11-1993 would show that he took into consideration the whole litigious background of the matter and recorded the findings as follows:-- "Having given careful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsels of the respective parties and facts of the case, it is quite obvious that Khewat Nos,908 and 748 measuring 193 Kanals, 3 Marlas was jointly owned by the parties who were all co-sharers. Out of this Khewat on area 126 Kanals, 16 Marlas was facing G.T. Road. This entire piece of land was allocated to the petitioners. On the face of it, this allocation was irregular. The respondent was entitled to 1/8 share out of 126 Kanals, 16 Marlas. It was totally unjust to deprive the respondent of this extremely valuable land. Under the circumstances, it was not possible that the respondent could ever accept such on unlawful and unjust allocation of entire inferior land to his wanda. There is considerable substance in the contentions of the counsel for the respondent that the petitioners were unduly accommodated on superior land which was obviously in connivance with the Consolidation Authorities. Even according to the present amendment, the respondent has been given a very small, piece of land facing the G.T. Road. The rest of his allocation is at a far off distance from it and on the other side of Railway Track."
While deciding the review petition filed by the petitioners even the successor, Member Board of Revenue has maintained the same. it is thus, evident that the statutory functionaries in the hierarchy have duly applied mind to the controversy between the parties and passed the orders accordingly. Only 16 Kanals of land out of the total of 127 kanals, which is situated, alongside the G.T.
Road has been given to the respondents. Admittedly the entitlement of the parties has remained intact and no reduction has taken place. Mere allocations and adjustments made and upheld by the statutory functionaries would not entitle the petitioners to seek a judicial review of their orders in writ jurisdiction. This Court can neither by entering into the exercise of measurements and calculations on footage basis interfere with such a just dispensation nor dislocate the parties. The parties should accept such adjustment particularly when they are co-owners in the Khata. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to interfere with orders based on equitable distribution rectifying the injustices. It has repeatedly been reiterated and laid down by the apex Court that High Court in writ jurisdiction should not interfere with orders of the Consolidation Authorities. Reference in this context may be made to Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (1970 SCMR 292), Muhammad. Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139), Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others (1989 SCMR 1096), Allah Rehman and others v.
Amtul Qayyum and another (1989 SCMR 1817), Muhammad Bashir and 6 others v. Sultan and 3 others (1993 SCMR 1568), Azad Riaz v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and 4 others (1997 SCMR 1611) and Brig. Sadaat Alishah v. Muhammad Hanif and 3 others (PLD 1993 Lahore 694). Just and proper allocation and adjustment has been made by the authorities concerned in this case which does not warrant interference, by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
As a result of the above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.