As a consequence of consolidation operation in village, the scheme was confirmed on 31-12-1976.
The grievance of the petitioner relates to land measuring 88 Kanals, 7 Marlas, which was given to him. The scheme was, statedly, challenged by some landowners, but according to the --learned counsel reference to that part of litigation is not relevant to the dispute between the present parties. It is, however submitted that a time-barred appeal was filed by respondents Nos.2 to 5 in the year 1978 in which according. To the learned counsel the petitioner was not impleaded as party. That appeal was accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector 21-1-1980, remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer for drawing fresh proposal. In pursuance of the said order, Consolidation Officer proposed some alterations and changes in the scheme and the matter was then taken up by the Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector Gujranwala, who vide his order, dated 10-8-1981, making some amendments and adjustments disposed of the appeal of Muhammad Aslam respondent No.2.
That order was appealed against by the petitioner which was dismissed on 4-1-1982 by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore. The matter was then agitated by him instituting a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue Punjab on 14-11-1982. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 challenged that order through Writ Petition No.4876 of 1982 which petition was accepted by this Court on 28-6-1983, remanding the matter to the learned Member, (Consolidation) Board of Revenue for fresh decision after hearing the parties. It is in pursuance thereof that order dated 30-6-1986 was passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. This order has now been assailed through this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had not been impleaded as party in the appeal initially filed by Muhammad Aslam respondent, which appeal was also time- barred, thus, no adverse order could be passed affecting the rights or interest of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has installed tubewell in the land and raised some construction as well, he, therefore, could not be deprived of the land.
3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents has supported the impugned order and offered to compensate the petitioner for the tubewell as was observed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in his order dated 4-1-1982 and even double the same.
4. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal filed by respondent Muhammad Aslam was time-barred and the petitioner had not been impleaded therein, the perusal of memo. Of appeal and the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector dated 21-1-1980, should have been placed on record, which has not been done. The question whether limitation should or should not be condoned "lies within the discretion of the authority before whom a matter is agitated and this discretion cannot be interfered with unless it has been exercised illegally or arbitrarily". It was so observed in Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi v.
Water and Power Development Authority and another 1980 SCM R 722 and Naseem Chaudhry v.
Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 4 others 1995 SCM R 1655. It may also be observed that indeed such a question cannot be agitated by the petitioner now inasmuch as the matter had earlier also been before this Court in Writ Petition No.4876 of 1982, which petition as mentioned above was accepted and remanded to the Board of Revenue on 28-6-1983, which judgment was not challenged by the petitioner any further. The contention thus in the circumstances has no merit and is repelled. In so far as the claim of the petitioner that once the land was given to him in the process of I consolidation, it should remain with him and cannot be taken back also has no substances inasmuch the statutory authorities up to the Bard of Revenue in that hierarchy could make adjustments and amendments, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The adjustments and amendments made by the Collector (Consolidation) vide his order dated 10-8-1981, do not in any way affect of reduce the entitlement or holding of the petitioner. In appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner, proceeded to redress the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent would compensate the petitioner for the tubewell and the construction raised by him. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, who' is at the apex of that hierarchy, has examines the record in order to satisfy him and observed "that the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation) did what was only fair and proper. The petitioner held his land in 8 plots before consolidation scattered here and there. All these pieces have been brought together in three compact blocks. His main plot comprises mostly the area which was owned by the Centra Government. These Khasra numbers were excluded from his Khata and in lieu thereon he was given the adjoining Khasra number which were held by him before Consolidation. As the previous area has bee: restored to the petitioner, he should have welcomed the new arrangement rather to agitate the matter unnecessarily. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he has installed tubewell and constructed houses in the disputed Khasra numbers is concerned, the respondents are prepared to compensate him and the direction of the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) to the Collector (Consolidation) for assessment of the compensation is quite right. As regards the objection that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party at the preliminary stage of the case and as such was condemned I unheard, there are now numerous rulings on the point which inter alia enunciate that this defect is curable provided the aggrieved person is heard by the next higher Court. In this particular case he had the full opportunity to present his case before the Additional Commissioner in its correct perspective. He did so. Now he cannot press this point as I have also heard him. There are no good grounds for interference in the concurrent findings of the two lower Courts". Various considerations have to be kept in view by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, who are then to make adjustments and amendments in the Wandas of the parties. All the aspects relevant to the matter have been kept in view by the learned Member in passing order dated 30-6-1986, qua the entitlement and rights of the parties in this petition. It has consistently and repeatedly been laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that this Court in writ jurisdiction could not upset adjustments made by the Consolidation Authorities and the finding recorded by them in such a matter. Reference-may be made to Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 SCM R 292, Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139, Falak Sher and others v. Sharif and others 1989 SCM R 1096, Allah Rehman's and others v. Amtul Qayyum and another 1989 SCM R 1817 and Muhammad Bashir and 9 others v. Sultan and 3 others 1993 SCM R 1568. I, thus, find no valid justification to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities in the matter. It may, however, be observed and reiterated that in the process of implementation, the direction given by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation in his order dated 4-1-1982, regarding H compensation for the tubewell and construction raised by the petitioner, the offer made by the learned counsel for the respondents that double compensation so assessed will be paid by the respondents, will be kept in view.
5. As a result of the above, the petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed with the above observation. No order as to costs.