1986 PLP 2386 (MLD)

‑‑‑Ss.10(4), 11 & 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑ Consolidation of holdings‑ ‑Order for‑‑Modification of‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Petitioner having adequately been compensated by appellate Court in modifying Collector's orders of consolidation in appeal by giving him other compact block in place of one granted to him by Collector and admittedly there being no loss of entitlement to petitioners, modification made by Appellate Court subsequently confirmed in revisions by Board of Revenue held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Muhammad Saleem Zeervi for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Syed Munir Hussain for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Date of hearing: 4th May, 1986. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings, scheme of which was confirmed by the Collector on 23‑11‑1968 under section 10(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Khatas prepared by the Collector were accepted by the petitioners but Mehr Khan respondent challenged it in appeal. The Additional Commissioner vide his order, dated 7‑4‑1969 modified the orders of the Collector and another plot was given to the petitioners instead of the one given to him by the Collector. The petitioners challenged the orders in revision but the revision petition was dismissed on 19‑6‑1969. The‑ writ petition has been pending in this Court ever since.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners were given a Khata out of the land belonging to respondent No.5 and not from any land belonging to Mehr Khan respondent No.3. The learned counsel states that the Khata given to the petitioners was not really acceptable to them but they agreed to it on account of the request made to them on behalf of respondent No.5. Their case is that they should not be further displaced by being given a different plot altogether.

3. It is correct that the petitioners were satisfied with the Khata given to them by the Collector but the orders of the Collector were subject to appeal and revision and if any modification has been made in these orders in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, it cannot be questioned on ground of want of jurisdiction. Again it cannot be said that the petitioners acquired any vested right in that Khata merely because the Collector at one stage of the proceedings granted it to them. The appellate authority or the revisional Court could always modify it depending on the circumstances of the case.

4. On merits the petitioners have been given another compact block in place of the compact block given to them by the Collector. Admittedly also there is no loss of entitlement in this process. The modifications made by the Additional Commissioner 'which were subsequently confirmed in revision by the Board of Revenue are, therefore, not open to petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to cost. H.B.T Petition dismissed.