1988 PLP 805 (MLD)

This Constitutional petition is directed against order dated 21‑7‑1973 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue whereby he set aside confirmation of consolidation scheme recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ferozewala on 18‑8‑1967 and directed to hold fresh consolidation proceedings in the village.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that consolidation operations commenced in village Faizpur Khurd, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupra in the year 1964 and the scheme for consolidation was confirmed on 18‑8‑1967 by the Collector under section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Number of appeals and revisions were filed against the scheme before the higher Revenue authorities. The learned Member, Board of Revenue vide order dated 19‑4‑1971 took cognizance of the matter in exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The subordinate Revenue Officers after hearing the parties and in view of glaring defects in the consolidation scheme depriving number of land‑owners from their proprietary lands recommended for the revision of the whole scheme. The learned Member, Board of Revenue inspected the spot and came to the conclusion that the consolidation scheme required complete revision and it was not possible to rectify 'end correct the record as it would create more complications in the matter. Accordingly he set aside the consolidation scheme of the village and directed fresh consolidation by giving some guidelines to the subordinate Revenue Officers in the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the confirmation of consolidation scheme had taken place in the year 1967 and possession of the land owners had changed since then, any change made in their holdings would create great hardship for them. It was next argued that the learned Member Board of Revenue had exercised suo motu jurisdiction on the representation of some land owners of the village against the consolidation scheme after a lapse of statutory period provided for the purpose, therefore, the impugned order is untenable. It was further submitted that it would be in the interest of justice if the grievance of only aggrieved persons is redressed and not to undo the entire scheme.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents opposed this petition and contended that the learned Member Board of Revenue, in exercise of his jurisdiction has set aside the consolidation scheme of the village after noticing major defects in the scheme. The impugned order is, therefore, not liable to, interference in writ jurisdiction. It was also stated that the learned Member, Board of Revenue had taken cognizance of the defects in the consolidation scheme and passed order in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction for which no period of limitation is prescribed. It was next submitted that the case has been remanded for reconsideration and the petitioners could have no legitimate grievance. It was lastly stated that the mere lapse of time would not validate the consolidation scheme whereby several land‑owners were deprived of their valuable rights in the property.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents of the file. It is true that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, in suo motu exercise of his jurisdiction upset the consolidation scheme of the village by noticing major defects therein after lapse of considerable time but the order having been passed after hearing the parties calls for no interference. The learned Member, Board of Revenue in the impugned order had observed:‑‑ "The new consolidation scheme should be prepared on such lines tb,4, t there is a minimum dislocation of the present possessions and as far as possible changes are made through amicable settlement by mutual consent. Possession should be kept intact to the extent of entitlement subject to the condition that persons who were deprived of better quality land or better situated land, are duly compensated by giving back their land to them or by giving them equally good land as far as possible or by monetary adjustments, where possible." This order is not only clothed with legality but appears to be just in the light of the glaring defects of the consolidation scheme as mentioned in detail to the order dated 22‑4‑1971 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Annex‑A with this petition).

6. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue in exercise of the discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court even if the order may suffer from some technical defects highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. In the result this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./2732/L Petition dismissed.