WALI DAD Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN

Dispute in the present case relates only to Killa No.2 of Square No.70 measuring 8 Kanals. It is admitted by both the learned counsel that before the consolidation, the Kills. in question was jointly owned by the petitioner and the respondents and 4 Kanals out of this were in possession of the petitioner. Consolidation Officer while confirming the Consolidation Scheme of the village allocated the said Killa to the respondents. Petitioner filed an appeal which was disposed of by the A.D.C.(C) vide order, dated 21‑12‑1982. It appears that the A . D . C . (C) appointed a referee who submitted certain proposals. A . D . C . (C) disposed of the appeal in the light of the proposals of the Referee. As the Killa in dispute was not given to the petitioner by the A . D . C . (C) . he preferred a further appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 29‑7‑1984. Revision petition filed by the petitioner also met no better fate and was dismissed by the learned Member (Judl.) Board of Revenue vide order dated 31‑7‑1986. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the afore‑mentioned orders of the Consolidation Authorities.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Referee appointed by A.D. C . (C) , did not propose the area in dispute in favour of the petitioner. That being so, the order of the A.D. C.(C) proceeding on the basis of the proposals made by the Referee was not open to any exception. Petitioner cannot, therefore, make any legitimate grievance against the dismissal of his appeal and revision.

3. Apart from what has been said above, allocation of a particular Khasra number lies within the exclusive domain of Consolidation Authorities. This Court sitting in constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the orders passed by ‑the Tribunals of competent B jurisdiction particularly when the impugned orders are not shown to suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. Refer 1970 SCMR 292.

4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

H . B . T . /W‑28/L Petition dismissed.