KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.-- This petition is directed against a judgment dated 24.8.1999 of the Lahore High Court through which two writ petitions i.e. One bearing W.P. No. 9035 of 1990 and the other bearing W.P. No. 7121 of 1991 were dismissed with costs.
2. The dispute relates to the consolidation of holdings of the parties which emanated from a consolidation scheme confirmed on 28.12.1981. Having been through various competent authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the parties finally reached the Board of Revenue which passed an order dated 30.6.1990 which order was then impugned before the Lahore High Court which resulted in the judgment now being questioned before us.
3. The reasons which had weighed with the Hon'ble High Court to dismiss the petitions are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "5. Each and every aspect of the case has been dealt with by the learned MBR. He has concluded that after remand order of the Commissioner dated 10.3.1984, the Consolidation Officer could not have passed on the case to the Kanungo. He in fact concluded that some Ahmad passed the order of transfer and the is could not have been done. The alleged compromise has been recorded by the Kanungo who, as has been concluded, dos not have that authority to do so. After review of the material, I find no reasons to disagree with the above conclusion of the learned M.B.R.
6. The question of limitation is not material since under Section 13 of the Consolidation of Holding Ordinance, 1960, the learned M.B.R. Could call for the record of the proceedings of any subordinate agency for purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness and legality of the same. It has not been contested that notwithstanding the time-barred nature of the order of the Commissioner, the learned M.B.R. Could competently call for the record from the Collector and down below from the Consolidation Officer for purposes of passing effective orders. There is weight also in the submission of respondents that the question of limitation has not been taken below and is being urged for the first time in this Court.
7. The review of the case-law by both sides does indicate that the precise allocations and demarcations have to be left with the Consolidation Officer and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, should a not reappraise such factual controversies. It should concern itself with the legality of the orders and not the propriety of the same. In any case, after hearing the two sides as well as the learned Assistant Advocate General, I have not been persuaded to hold that the impugned directions of the learned M.B.R. In any manner are unjust or have caused miscarriage of justice."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at some length but could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court. It could not be shown that the discretion exercised by the High Court or the conclusions reached by its were arbitrary or unsound.
5. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.Leave refused