1994 PLP 446 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ArL199‑‑‑Consolidation operation‑‑‑Reduction in the entitlement of petitioner during consolidation operation was to the extent of 8 Marlas only‑‑‑Such decrease in the entitlement of petitioner (513 Kanals, 14 Marlas before Consolidation) had to be ignored in law, because in such like operations, small shortfall from original entitlement was likely to happen‑‑‑No injustice appeared to have been done to petitioners, who were accommodated by Consolidation Authorities by giving them land in question, in accordance with law‑‑‑Both quality and quantity‑wise, claim of petitioners was satisfied‑‑‑Finding of fact having been arrived at by competent forums, same was not open to judicial scrutiny in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑Finding of fact arrived at by the forums below was affirmed in circumstances. A.K. Khalid for Petitioners. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G., Rana M. Arshad Khan, Addl.A: G. and Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd March;1993. Ahmad Khan and Rehmat.Khan, the petitioners have assailed the validity of order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 14‑7‑1987 and another order passed by him in review on 24‑4‑1991, apparently on the grounds firstly that a substantial piece of land measuring 106 Kanals one Marla was reduced from their total entitlement and secondly the petitioners were not a party to the compromise alleged to have been entered into between the parties for the distribution of the land in question during the consolidation operation. Learned counsel submits that there was no authority vested in the respondent/Consolidation Authority to reduce their entitlement. His function, under the law, was to consolidate the scattered plots of land of the petitioners at one place. It is also contended that no consent was given by the petitioner to the arrangement, made by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No.4. Attention of the Court was drawn to the resolution having been passed over the controversy by the land‑owners.

2. Learned counsel of the contesting respondents states that the petition suffers from laches and, delay on the face of record. He adds that quality‑wise there was absolutely no decrease in the land of the petitioners and that the reduction as pointed out by the learned Member, Board of Revenue was negligible because it was 8 Marlas. The objection that the petitioners did not give consent to the distribution of the land between the parties was not raised by him before the Consolidation Authorities. It is being raised before this Court for the first time. Obviously, he cannot be allowed to do so. The perusal of the impugned order dated 14‑7‑1987 shows that the reduction in the entitlement of the petitioners was to the extent of 8 Marlas and definitely not beyond that. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it has specifically been noted that the land of the present petitioners in terms of class‑I was 513 Kanals 14 Marlas before consolidation. However, after consolidation, they received 513 Kanals 6 Marlas of land with a small shortfall of only 8 Marlas from their original entitlement. This much decrease in the entitlement had to be ignored in law A because in such like operation, it was nothing but natural to happen. It is also established that the plots of the petitioners have been reduced in lieu of consolidation scheme. In my view, the orders of the learned Member, Board of Revenue are just fair and proper. No injustice appears to have been done to the petitioners, in these circumstances. The parties were accommodated by the Consolidation Authorities by giving them the land in accordance with law. Both quality and quantity‑wise, the claim of the petitioners was satisfied. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the competent forums which is not open to judicial scrutiny in these proceedings. This being so, there is absolutely no substance in the petition which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AAA‑377/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.