1987 PLP 3344 (MLD)

Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner. Nabi Ahmad Cheema for Respondents. Date' of hearing: 20th June, 1987. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition briefly stated are that consolidation scheme of village Ladeki Goraya, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was confirmed on 30-6-1973 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 being satisfied with the allocation of the land to them, during the consolidation proceedings, did not challenge the confirmation of the scheme in appeal or revision before the higher consolidation authorities. However, one Ali Muhammad preferred two separate appeals, one against the petitioner and other against respondent No.2, which after having been remanded many times were lastly decided on 13-1-1978 by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) whereby the claim of Ali Muhammad was rejected against the present parties (herein referred to as parties).

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order Ali Muhammad challenged the same in revision before the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue in writ, before this Court and- in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court but failed. Similarly respondent No.2 also unsuccessfully assailed the aforesaid -order in revision before the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue. Pursuant to remand order dated 18-1-1978 the Collector (Consolidation) made certain adjustments on 1-12-1980 in the Khatas of the parties Respondent No.2 challenged that order in appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide order dated 14-10-1981 again remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision in accordance with the observations made in earlier order dated 18-1-1978. The Collector (Consolidation) again made certain adjustments which led the parties to challenge in appeal the aforesaid order before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and. the latter vide his order dated 9-5-1982 remanded the case to the Collector (Consolidation) for fresh decision. The parties once again challenged that order in revisions before the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue who disposed of the same vide impugned order dated 4-9-1983. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue vide impugned order had brought the parties to a position held by them in June 1973 after lapse of over a decade. It was further contended that the petitioner was satisfied with the order dated 18-1-1978 and that order was upheld by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue in revision filed by respondent No.2 as such he could not have reviewed his order without lawful justification.

3. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 opposed this petition and contended that .the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer confirming the scheme, in appear as such he could not have legitimate grievance against the impugned order if he has been directed to retain the land allocated to him with his consent on the date of the confirmation of the scheme. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that in para 4 of order dated 18-1-1978 the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) observed that the present parties before him argued for maintenance of the confirmation of consolidation scheme of the village as against Ali Muhammad. It is significant to observe that the present parties had jointly engaged a counsel to represents them as against Ali Muhammad and had a uniform stand for maintenance of order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed on 30-6-1973, confirming the consolidation scheme. Learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, therefore, committed no jurisdictional irregularity or illegality in restoring the position between the parties pursuant to consented confirmed consolidation scheme. Even the final order dated 9-5-1982 challenged by the petitioner in revision before the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue was also a remand order for fresh decision of the dispute.

5. The perusal of the various orders passed by the Consolidation Officers shows that this case had suffered several remand orders after confirmation of the scheme. After Ali Muhammad had lost his case against the confirmation of the scheme upto the level of the Supreme Court, the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue was justified to restore the present parties to the position obtained on the day the consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed with their consent. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed with costs. H.B.T. /M-488/L Petition dismissed.