1993 PLP 1568 (SCMR)

(b) West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑High Court while holding that on merits contesting respondents had a better claim to land in question, had not cared to examine revenue record, for its finding that prior to consolidation land in dispute was owned and in possession of contesting respondents was not supported by the latest Jamabandi at the time when consolidation operation started in the area‑‑‑Very basis upon which High Court upheld the claim of contesting respondents was thus erroneous‑‑‑High Court also over‑looked the fact that under the Scheme prepared by Consolidation Officer the land in question had been allocated to some other persons from whom the appellants got the same in exchange and contesting respondents did not care to file any appeal‑‑‑Allocation of land in question, to a person/persons other than the contesting respondents had thus, become final‑‑‑Judgment of High Court to the contrary was set aside and land in question was restored to appellants. Muhammad Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1992 SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 5‑6‑1989 of the Lahore High Court whereby in Constitutional jurisdiction the order dated 26‑11‑1987 of the Board of Revenue was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. The dispute between the parties in this appeal relates to Killa No.8 of Square No.63 situate in village Sabowala of Tehsil Chiniot. During the consolidation proceedings this Killa was allocated in the scheme confirmed by the Consolidation Officer to Khizar Hayat and others. They were not satisfied with the scheme and preferred an appeal before the Collector. The appeal was accepted and the disputed Killa was given to the appellants in exchange for Killa No.3 falling in the same square which was given to Khizar Hayat and others. It is to be noticed that the contesting respondents in this appeal did not challenge the allocation of the Khasra in dispute under the consolidation scheme to Khizar Hayat and others. However that may be, in some different proceedings arising out of some other appeals the Additional Commissioner allocated the Khasra in dispute to the contesting respondents. The appellants filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. They then filed a review application. A learned Member of the Board accepted the review application and re‑allocated the disputed Khasra to the appellants. The contesting respondents filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the learned Member. It was accepted and the order of the learned Member was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appellants have now come in appeal to this Court.

3. This Court has in a number of judgments' taken the view that the matters relating to the allocation of land under consolidation schemes do not form an appropriate subject for the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reference in this context may be made to two of the cases on the subject. They are: Ghulam Qadir v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan (1970 SCMR 292) and Muhammad Hussain Munition v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139). In this case the only question for consideration was that which of the two parties was better entitled to the Khasra in dispute. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the Board of Revenue passed in review in this regard.

4. In holding that on merits the contesting respondents had a better claim to the Killa in dispute the High Court has not cared to examine the revenue record, for its finding that prior to consolidation it was owned and in possession of the contesting respondents is not supported by the Jamabandi of 1975‑7G which was the latest revenue record at the time when the consolidation operation started in the village. Thus the very basis upon which it upheld the claim of the contesting respondents was erroneous. The High Court also overlooked the fact that under the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer the Khasra in dispute had been allocated to Khizar Hayat and others; the contesting respondents did not care to file any appeal. In the circumstances so far as the contesting respondents were concerned the allocation of the disputed Khasra to a person other than the contesting respondents became final. It is therefore difficult to support the judgment under appeal before us. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and withdraw the writ issued by it. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1765/S Appeal accepted.