1992 PLP 2351 (CLC)

S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 ‑‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Past and closed transaction‑‑‑Effect ‑‑‑ Petitioner claimed to have been rightly accommodated during consolidation operation‑‑‑Collector having made amendment in the Wanda of petitioner, he failed to challenge such amendment in his Wanda ‑‑‑ Petitioner's such conduct disentitled him to seek extraordinary relief in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Possession of property in question, had changed meanwhile and transaction was past and closed ‑‑‑ Principle underlying consolidation of holdings having been complied with no case ‑was made out warranting interference by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. Ch. Irshad Ahmad Virk for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1991. This writ petition has been filed to assail the operation under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, in village Ransekcy, Tehsil Phalia District, Gujrat. The brief history of the case is that the scheme framed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance was confirmed on 31‑7‑1975. The petitioner and 'others riled appeals separately before the Collector who vide order dated 13‑8‑1983 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Gujrat, for framing fresh proposals. In pursuance to the remand order, the Consolidation Officer submitted his proposal on 5‑7‑1985 to the Collector who vide order dated 25‑8‑1985 made certain amendments in the Wandas of the parties. It may be stated here that the petitioner also consented in favour of the proposal framed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner again challenged the aforesaid order by Way of preferring an appeal which was dismissed and against the aforesaid order, a revision petition was riled before the Member, Board of Revenue which was also dismissed vide order 30‑10‑1990 and the said order has been assailed through this writ petition. After hearing the learned counsel at length and having gone through the various orders passed, it stands proved on the record that the petitioner himself stated that he had been rightly accommodated during the consolidation operation but grievance was made out of the amendments made in his Wanda by Collector vide order dated 25‑8‑1985. It is noteworthy to mention that against the order dated 25‑8‑1985, no appeal was riled by the petitioner with a view to save himself from litigation. After completing the Misal Haqiat, the record of the village was sent to the Mahal side and since then, the possessions have also been changed. It is obvious that the conduct of the petitioner disentitled him to seek extraordinary relief vesting in this Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. In fact, the transaction is past and closed. The possessions have changed and the operation has come to an end. It will be unfair and unjust at this stage to reopen the case. In my view, the principle underlying the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance has been complied with and, therefore, no case has been made warranting interference by this Court. Hence this petition is dismissed. AA./M/558/L Petition dismissed.