' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 8-4-2002 passed by learned Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the writ petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and orders passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue, dated 23- 10-1990 and 31-5-1993 were kept intact.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are "that the consolidation operations in village Thatha Kalian, Tehsil and District Hafizabad were taken up in the year 1957 and the scheme was confirmed on 11-2-1957. The Collector (Consolidation) moved the Board of Revenue for second consolidation operations since more than 51% of the land owners wanted the re-consolidation of their lands. The Board of Revenue granted the necessary permission for second consolidation of the village on 26-9-1983. The Consolidation Scheme was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1984 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. In the year 1986 some of the land owners moved the Minister for Consolidation, Government of Punjab for re-consolidation of the village on the ground of numerous illegalities and irregularities by the Consolidation Staff during the consolidation proceedings. The Minister for Consolidation ordered for re-consolidation of the village on 19-11-1986. The Additional Commissioner under the orders of the Minister issued a letter to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala on 25-11-1986 ordering the re-consolidation of the village afresh. The said order of the Minister was challenged in Writ Petition No,3436 of 1987 which was allowed vide order, dated 16-3-1988 and the case was remanded to the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore with direction that the Member should ensure that the `rights of the citizen is valuable village immovable property which they hold so dear to them are no squandered, usurped or thrown to winds'. After remand the Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) called for a report from the Consolidation Officer Headquarters, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore in respect of all the complaints. The case remained pending before various Members (Consolidation) and finally Malik Jahangir Khan, M.B.R. Vide his order, dated 23-10-1990 held that there was no need for re-consolidation of the village and if there were any mistakes/errors the same could be corrected by the Additional Commissioner or the ADC(C) in the exercise of the suo motu power. A review petition filed before the learned M.B.R. Who vide his order, dated 31-5-1993, dismissed the same".
Being aggrieved a writ petition was preferred which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence this petition.
3. Heard Mr. Ali Akbar Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly argued that the evidence which has come on record has not been appreciated by the learned Member, Board of Revenue which also escaped notice of the learned High Court resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is urged with vehemence that the report of Consolidation Officer pointing out various serious illegalities and glaring irregularities in the consolidation process has been ignored without any rhyme and reason and on this score alone consolidation in question can be declared null and void.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 and gone through the order of learned Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation), and judgment impugned. After having a careful scrutiny of the entire record we are of the opinion that no concrete, cogent and convincing evidence could be led showing that incorrect classification of land was made. The alleged incorrect classification was never challenged by any of the right holders before the appropriate forum at opportune moment. Had any of the right holders been aggrieved he would have definitely challenged it. No right holder has come forward for the redressal of his grievances and thus only inescapable conclusion would be that consolidation was neither prejudicial nor had adversely affected the rights of right holders. It is pertinent to mention here that the process of consolidation is not only exhaustive but time consuming which cannot be undertaken time and again without sufficient justification or annulled on the basis of a few minor lapses. The Consolidation Scheme was carried out in the year 1984 pursuant to the provisions as contained in section 10(3) of the Consolidation Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by constituting an Advisory Committee which have remained associated during the process of consolidation and thus the question of allocation of more or less land does not arise. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has dilated upon all the controversial aspects with diligent application of mind and the conclusion arrived at, which is reproduced hereinbelow, is in consonance with legal provisions of the said Ordinance and hardly calls for any interference:-- ' "Taking into considerations all the above facts and arguments I have come to the conclusion that the consolidation scheme of village was confirmed with the consent of the right holders. For the rectification of mistakes, if any, the entire consolidation scheme cannot be annulled. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) and Additional Commissioner (Cons.) should examine the record and rectified the mistakes, if any, in the Consolidation Scheme through suo motu proposals. On reaching the conclusion the request for setting aside the entire Consolidation Scheme of the village Thatha Kalian, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala being devoid of any convincing force, is hereby declined."
5. A bare perusal of the above reproduced verdict would indicate that any omission or error can be rectified by approaching the quarter concerned available in the revenue hierarchy. Even otherwise reconsolidation depends upon the wishes of majority subject to all legal exceptions for which the proper forum can be approached.
' In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.