1970 PLP 292 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑ Consolidation scheme in respect of village Kulyana, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal was con firmed under section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, on the 28th January 1966. Deceased Noor Ahmad, predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 5, filed a revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore, and challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner before him. In this revision petition the learned Member Board of Revenue, by order dated the 5th December 1968, directed that Killa Nos. 18 and 19/1‑2 measuring 13 kanals and 9 marlas should be taken out from khata of Ghulam Qadir petitioner and be given to the deceased. He further directed that in lieu of this Killa No. 2‑min north of square No. 145 should be taken out from the khata of Noor Ahmad deceased and given to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 637 of 1969, which was dismissed on the 11th June 1969. The learned Judges of the High Court, after examining the jamabandi with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not the exclusive owner of Killa Nos. 18 and 19/1‑

2. He was found to be joint owner and his share was found to be approximately to the extent of the land which was given to him in Killas Nos. 22 and

23. They further found that deceased Noor Ahmad was also a co‑sharer in Killas Nos. 22 and

23. In these circumstances they came to tile conclusion that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. In support of the petition, Mr. Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the petitioner was condemned un‑heard by the Member Board of Revenue. The petitioner had fallen ill and a medical certificate had been sent to the Court but in spite of that the revision petition was heard as ex parte. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. In the first place, no such objection was pressed before the High Court and the petitioner cannot b: allowed to raise it before this Court. In any case, Mukhtar‑i‑Aam of the petitioner was present before the Member Board of Revenue and his grievance that he was not properly represented before him is not well founded. In case lie has any grievance in this respect, it was open to him to raise this point before the Member Board of Revenue in revenue proceedings. There is thus no force in this contention. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the question as' to which killa number should have been given to the parties was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities. The High Court could not sit in judgment against the order of the Revenue Authorities in such matters. In these circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with the matter in dispute. The petition in dismissed. Leave refused.