P L D 2002 Lahore 62 (PLP)

(iii) That respondent No. 1 has considered the impleadment of some of the persons at the stage of appeal and revision to be fatal to the cases of the petitioners. But the learned Member has not adverted to the circumstances of the case and the explanation given by the petitioners regarding the non‑impleadment of all the persons at the time of the filing of the first appeal. Petitioners had filed the application for impleadment of the persons which had become known to them and who were given the property of the petitioners during the consolidation proceedings when they were granted the copies of the Wandas of the other persons also. Thus, the prayer was rejected without any lawful basis. (iv) That the learned Member has incorrectly presumed the alienations to be an obstacle in the case of the petitioners. The alleged transactions mentioned in para. No. 8 of the impugned order were not of such kind as to create hindrance against the petitioner's to seek the relief. The petitioners could not be deemed to have accepted the Wandas in the consolidation by their act and conduct because they were pursuing the remedy before the Consolidation Authorities in appeal and revision with regard to the wrong allocation of Khasra Nos. in their favour. (v) Lands which were near to the Chowk, main road and were commercial in nature were taken away from the petitioners although this land was owned by the petitioners and were in their exclusive Khata before the consolidation. (vi) That the petitioners' land was made to spread over into more pieces after the consolidation.

7. Respondents Nos. l and 3 were directed to submit report and parawise comments. In the said report and parawise comments submitted in this Court the said respondents explained the complete proceedings of the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Magloti, Tehsil Ahmedpur East, District Bahawalpur. It was contended that against the confirmation of the said scheme dated 24‑3‑1983 the petitioners preferred an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 17‑1‑1984. Being dissatisfied the petitioners went up in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who dismissed the said revision vide order dated 13‑7‑1986. Further, revision before Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore was also rejected on 13‑2‑1990. In the parawise comments it was stated that during the consolidation operations the petitioners were allocated land according to their entitlement of Schemes Nos. 293, 123, 98 and

331. The said land was allocated to them with their consent. They were accommodated in most of the land previously held by them. They were not deprived of valuable land adjacent to the road commercial in nature and constructed area.

8. The learned counsel for the parties were heard in support of their respective contentions.

9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners are as under:‑‑ (i) That there was no consent obtained with regard to the transfer of lands belonging to the petitioners and that the Wandas of others was unlawful. (ii) That there was no consolidation with regard to the lands of the petitioners. It was alleged that in fact it was de‑consolidation which was against the letter and spirit of law. It was contended that after consolidation, their holdings were converted into more pieces as compared with the pre‑consolidation proceedings. (iii) That the impleadment of the parties at different stages was justified. (iv) That valuable land belongs to the petitioners which were in vicinity of main roads and were commercial in nature were taken without any justification.

10. The learned counsel for ‑ the petitioners placed reliance on case of Muhammad Boota etc. v. Feroz‑ud‑Din etc. in NLR 1981 (Revenue) 207, to contend that the Consolidation Authorities are not to adhere to strict rules of procedure and technicalities of law and have ample power to make any order to meet the ends of justice.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has stressed that only nine persons were impleaded as respondents in the appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur while this number was illegally raised to 81 in the Court of the Additional Commissioner while before the Mumber, Board of Revenue, the number has been increased to

91. According to the learned counsel this amounts to improving of the case by the petitioners which is not permissible. Reliance is placed in case of Sakhi Muhammad etc. v. Noor Muhammad etc. in NLR 1998 SCJ

355. It was also submitted that during the pendency of the litigation the petitioners have mortgaged the property in favour of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and National Bank of Pakistan for obtaining loan; that the details of the land so mortgaged or alienated has been noted in the judgment dated 13‑2‑1990 passed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue.

12. The learned counsel for respondent submitted with great force that writ jurisdiction is not proper for agitating grievance against the allocation o land in consolidation proceedings. He referred to the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, 1970 SCMR 292, Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar PLD 1974 SC 139, Amir Din etc. v. Muhammad Malik 1981 SCMR 834, Falak Sher and others v. Shareef and others 1989 SCMR 1096. The learned counsel for the respondent also placed a certified copy of the judgment passed in W.P. No. 1282 of 1994/BWP, dated 8‑5‑1996 in which the same proposition of law was upheld. The learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon case of Barkat Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue, in 1992 MLD 1638 to contend that the question whether before the consolidation operation, consent of land owner was obtained by the Consolidation Authorities is a question of fact and such question of fact cannot be gone into by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Reliance was also placed on NLR 1980 SCJ 237 in the case of Ghulam Nabi v. Member, Board Revenue and others, wherein, it was held that the grounds that consolidation has resulted in further splitting up of petitioners holding in more plots and pieces as compared to its position before the consolidation, does not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Ghani v. Abdul Ghafoor etc. 1993 MLD 1643 to contend that the alienation of part of holding by the petitioner would disentitle him to relief in writ jurisdiction, as after alienation rights of the parties cannot be readjusted.

13. The proceedings for confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme of the. Revenue Estate Magloti have been perused. The judgment in appeal dated 17‑1‑1984 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Bahawalpur as also the judgment dated 13‑7‑1986 passed by Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) passed on revision and indeed the judgment of the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 13‑2‑1990 have been examined. The entire case that has been set up by the petitioners in the instant writ petition has been thoroughly discussed before the different fora in the hierarchy of the Tribunals under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Every point of law and fact has been properly addressed by the special f6ra. Following the dictum in the cases of Ghulam Qadir v. M.B.R. (supra), Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (supra) and Amin Din v. Muhammad Malik (supra) the writ petitions found to be completely without force. Further, the consent which was obtained stands concluded up to the level of the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue and being a question of fact cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction. Splitting the holding of the petitioner into further plots and pieces is also repelled. Placing reliance upon the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue (supra), it is held that question as to which "Killa" number should have been given to the parties is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authority and High Court in writ jurisdiction could not sit in the judgment against such decision.

14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M‑765/L Petition dismissed.