1994 PLP 1171 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order/judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28‑4‑1992 whereby his Constitution Petition filed challenging the consolidation proceedings was dismissed.

2. The petitioners were satisfied with the consolidation scheme which was confirmed on 12‑6‑1980. However, that proposal was revised after remand on 7‑2‑1984 in which the class II land of the petitioners measuring 4 kanals 6 marlas was withdrawn from him and instead he was given 4 kanals 8 marlas elsewhere. This revised scheme was ultimately approved by the Board of Revenue. The review sought by the petitioners failed.

3. The two grounds taken up before the Board of Revenue were as hereunder:‑‑ "(i) The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that Khasra No.21/6/1(4 Kanals 6 Marlas) which has been taken away from the petitioners is more valuable being near the Abadi Deh, on road‑side and is also situated in front of their houses. It was previously owned by the petitioners, as such the respondents have no preferential right over that number. Since the respondents have already been adjusted near village Abadi, the Additional Commissioner was not justified in giving more land to them near Abadi:" "(ii) The land given to the petitioners in consolidation operations was on account of mutual compromise between the family of the petitioners. The petitioners have not received any land from the respondents, therefore, adjustments made by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) are liable to be set aside." The learned Member of the Board of Revenue disposed of both these objections with the following finding:‑‑‑ "I have gone through the arguments of the learned counsel and have perused the record. The plea of the petitioners that they have been deprived of valuable land near Abadi Deh is not supported by the record. A perusal of sketch map clearly shows that the petitioners have been fairly and adequately adjusted according to their entitlement. Even in regard to giving them land close to the Abadi Deh they have not been treated adversely. In fact they have been given much more land than what they possessed prior to consolidation near Abadi Deh. In view of this I find no merit in the request of the petitioners for intervention at the revisional stage. The revision petition is dismissed."

4. The High Court in rejecting the Constitution Petition and refusing to interfere with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue observed as hereunder:‑‑ "In the course of hearing, I specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioners (who is the same in all three cases) as to where are the plans relating to pre‑consolidation and post‑consolidation holdings? His mere reply was that since on account of their size they may have not been conveniently managable, therefore, he has not provided them on these records. I wanted to see those plans but none was in fact available with him and he did not even express any desire for opportunity being provided to supply them. It is not possible to proceed with these cases in any satisfactory manner on the basis of such incomplete records and any exercise attempted on their basis is bound to be futile."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners wants to take up the same grounds before us as were taken before the Board of Revenue and in the High Court. In support no additional material has been produced before us to show that ex facie the view taken by the Board of Revenue is against the weight of the record or is manifestly untenable. No question of law as such arises in the case to require our further examination in this Court.

6. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. AA./I‑182/S Leave refused.