JUDGMENT SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.- In this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside judgment dated 16.1.1991 passed by Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and order dated 23.9.1987 passed by Addl. Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner was owner of land measuring 5 kanals, 16 marlas bearing Khewat Nos. 127, 145 and 186 Khatuni No. 469 situated in village Wasilan and he was in possession of the same since 1964. The petitioner stated that consolidation scheme was confirmed on 29.4.1974 and aforesaid land (5 kanals, 16 marlas bearing Killa No. 1) was given to him. Thereafter Sharif-uI-Hassan respondent No. I 8 VoLXXll Noor Ahmad V. Member, Board of Revenue Rev.C. 115 (Syed Sokhi Hussan Bukhari, J.) filed appeal before A.D.C. (C) but petitioner was not a party his appeal and the same was accepted on 1,11.1981. Later n Mst. Mehr Khatoon, respondent No. 3 filed appeal before ddl.
Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur against order dated 1.11.1981 and petitioner was not party in said ppeal but Addl. Commissioner accepted her appeal and suit nd (measuring 5 kanals, 16 marlas bearing Killa No. 1) was given to Mst. Mehr Khatoon, respondent No. 3 whereas land leasuring 5 kanals, 16 marlas bearing Killa No. 16 was given o the petitioner. He filed revision petition before respondent 'o. 1 (M.B.R.) but the same was dismissed vide order dated 6.1.1991. He filed suit for declaration against the orders assed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 but the same was isniissed by learned Civil judge vide judgment dated 6.2.1992. Hence this writ petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Submits that factual controversy is volved in this case which cannot be resolved in this writ etition. Further submits that petitioner had filed suit for eclaration against impugned orders which was dismissed on 6.2.1992 but the petitioner never challenged the said dgment and decree before any Court which has attained ality, therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. As mentioned above Addl. Commissioner onsolidation), Bahawalpur gave suit land 9 measuring 5 nals, 16 marlas) to Mst. Mehr Khatoon, respondent No. 3 de judgment dated 23.9.1987 passed in appeal brought by r {Mst. Mehr Khatoon). The petitioner filed revision tition before M.B.R, (respondent No. 1) against said dgment but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated .1.1991. The perusal of record shows that then petitioner ed a suit for declaration against Mst. Mehr Khatoon, etc. d challenged order dated 23.9.1987 passed by Addl. Mmissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur and judgment ted 16.1.1991 passed by Member Board of Revenue onsolidation), Punjab, Lahore but his suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 16.2.1992. The petitioner has given particulars of civil suit in writ petition. Never filed any appeal etc. Against the said judgment anc decree which has now attained finality. So this writ petition i| liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
6. On merits too petitioner Iras no case. The perusal o| order dated 16.1.1991 passed by'M.B.R, shows that hi| revision petition was dismissed after considering materia available on record. The respondent (M.B.R.) observed that "Consolidation operations are a matter of give and take an<[ no material discrepancy appears to have occurred in thj allocation of wandas and hence no interference by this Cour would be justifiable". Even otherwise it is well-reasoned ordeij The case of petitioner is that suit land (5 kanals, 16 marlas) adjacent to his remaining land. Also that land given to him b Addl. Commissioner is at a distance of about 3 miles from hi original land, It shows that factual controversy is involved I this case which cannot be resolved by this Court in th exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, therefore th same is liable to dismissed.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this wr petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissec No order as to costs.
According!]