1985 PLP 1279 (MLD)

Mian M. Zafar Yasin for Petitioner. Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1983. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Qadir Bakhsh and 8 others want this Court to declare the orders, dated 25-3-1980 and 28-1-1982 passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Multan, respondent No. 2 and Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) Lahore, respondent No.3, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners in brief are that consolidation operation started in village Kanooni, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh in the year, 1978. The scheme was prepared by the consolidation staff which was accepted by respondent No. l and the same was accordingly confirmed on 27-12-1978. Despite that respondent No.1 Mst. Mumtaz Batool, filed appeal before the Consolidation Officer challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer, dated 27-12-1978 to the extent of Khasra No. 35/24 measuring 3 Kanals. The appeal was accepted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) vide impugned order, dated 23-6-1979. Feeling still not satisfied, the respondent No.l filed appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) who accepted it on 23-6-1979. Respondent No.l did not stop there, she again moved appeal against this order, dated 23-6-1979 before Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 20-2--1980, wherein the petitioners were proceeded ex parte and the appeal was accepted on 25-3-1980: Thereafter, the petitioners' on coming to know of the ex parte order, dated 25-3--1980 filed revision before the Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahore on 30-4-1980 which was, however, dismis.5ed on 28-1-1982. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner having been filed after 8 months, the question of the delay was not taken into consideration by him. Furthermore, the learned Member, Board of Revenue also did not advert to the question of limitation for filing appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner although it was specifically taken before him in the grounds of revision. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgments.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner was filed after about' 8 months but this delay was condoned by him, vide his order, dated 1-3-1980 and as such the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not hold any water. Furthermore, the question of adjustment of the plot being in the exclusive jurisdiction of respondents No.2 and 3, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by them.

5. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A. A. Petition dismissed.