SAID BEGUM Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE

The petitioners have moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders,‑ dated 23‑6‑1986, 24‑9‑1985 and 13‑11‑1983, respectively passed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme in village Santpura, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat was confirmed on 25‑2‑1974. The respondent No.4 Siraj Din went in appeal on 6‑2‑1979 which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) vide his order, dated 20‑11‑1979. The said respondent went in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which was disposed of with some observation vide order, dated 30‑12‑1980. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) passed an order whereby Khasra No. 482 measuring 17 Marlas was taken from the present petitioners and was restored in the Khata of the Central Government and in lieu of the above Khasra No. 482, the petitioners were given Khasra No. 601 which land is already with them in lieu of a decree passed by the Civil Court vide Annexure 'H'. The petitioners went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide his order, dated 24‑9‑1985. The petitioners filed a revision which was also dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, vide his order, dated 23‑6‑1986.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeal of .respondent No.4 was barred by time and it is apparent that the delay in the appeal was not at all condoned. It is submitted that respondent No.4 has no right whatsoever to file an appeal. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioners have not been given any land whatsoever in lieu of Khasra No. 482. *The Consolidation Patwari with record is ,present. He has made a statement that the' petitioners held land to the extent of 132 Kanals before consolidation and their holding after the consolidation comes to 132 Kanals 4 Marlas. Thus, it is established on the record that the entitlement of the petitioners has not at all been decreased as the result of the consolidation. This statement has not been contested by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. No injustice has been done and the petitioners' land has been consolidated in accordance with law. The finding of fact has been given by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 23‑6‑1986. This being so, I do not find any substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H . B . T . /S‑235/L Petition dismissed.