During consolidation proceedings, Khata No,6/2/1 of Square No,241 belonging to respondent No,2, was allotted to Muhammad Sharif, respondent No,3, of Scheme No,1353 and with the consent in writing of the writ petitioner his Khasra No,20/2 of Square No, 218 measuring 2 Kanals was given to respondent No ;2, in lieu of his aforesaid land.
2. The writ petitioner filed an appeal against that adjustment order which was accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation, Multan vide order dated 29-12-1986 whereby land bearing No,218/20/2 was withdraw from respondent No,2, and was given back to the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No,2, filed a revision against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan Division vide order dated 20-5-1989.
4. Both the aforesaid orders passed in appeal and revision respectively by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Consolidation and Additional Commissioner, Multan, were challenged by respondent No,2, through revision petition which was accepted by Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 28-3-1995 whereby both the impugned orders were set-aside and the original schemes between the parties as confirmed by the Consolidations Officer were restored.
5. Order of the Member Board of Revenue, aforesaid is called in question in this Constitutional petition as without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the grounds that:
(i) During consolidation proceedings, signatures of the writ petitioner were deceitfully obtained on the assurance that no change would be made and his land would be kept intact which was during consolidation proceedings, given to respondent No,2.
(ii) That impugned order suffers from non-reading of evidence and that; (iii)Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, had entered into an inquiry of facts in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction which was not warranted by law.
6. Petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard; writ petition and all annexures appended therewith perused.
7. A perusal of the writ petition would show that matter in controversy is with regard to allotment and adjustment of land during consolidation proceedings.
8. It is now well-settled that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for agitating grievances against the allotment of land in consolidation proceedings and orders made by Consolidation Authorities with regard to the allocation of land are not it matters to be agitated in Constitutional jurisdiction as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139) followed by a chain of authorities of the apex Court.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, not competent, it is accordingly dismissed.