FAIZ MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
The petitioner Faiz Muhammad has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders dated 30‑6‑1987 and 21‑4‑1986 passed by the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue and the orders dated 7‑10‑1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner and 26‑6‑1984 passed by the Consolidation Officer may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. On 28‑9‑1987 a notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and in compliance thereof, the respondents are present and have been heard through their learned counsel.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that consolidation scheme of village Phola Bangala, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 26‑6‑1984. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the above said order, went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala, which was heard and dismissed by him vide his order dated 5‑11‑1984. The appellate order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was heard and accepted and the case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide his order dated 12‑2‑1985. On remand, the Collector on 31‑7‑1985 partly accepted the appeal and exchanged the area of 5 Kanals and 14 Marlas out of Khasra No.530 out of the holding of the petitioner with some area out of Khasra No.528 given to respondent No.l Muhammad Rafique. The petitioner was not satisfied with the appellate order and he further went in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 7‑10‑1985. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing a revision petition before the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue which was dismissed by him on 21‑4‑1986. A review petition filed by the present petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue vide his order dated 30‑6‑1987.
4. The sole point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the consolidation operation in this case has not at all been conducted in accordance with the ownership of the petitioner and thereby a substantial injustice has been caused to him. Learned counsel stated that he has been deprived of his superior piece of land and in lieu thereof, inferior land has been given to him. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after the consolidation operation, the possession of the land so allotted to the respondent by the Consolidation authorities has been given to him and as such, the contesting respondent has built a house over the said land. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after considering the entire evidence available on the record and after hearing the parties. It is stated that the consolidation scheme was based on a compromise having been entered into between the parties. The Patwari of the area is present with the record. He has made a statement that the respondent No.l has built a house over the land in qu6stion. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. The impugned order passed by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue dated 21‑4‑1986 is based on evidence and it appears that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. It has been observed in the impugned order that the land which the petitioner wants to surrender was not previously owned and possessed by Ahmad Hasan respondent No.2 and as such, the petitioner cannot be benefited at the cost of others. In my view, this observation made by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue is perfectly valid and is based on l, evidence and law on the subject. Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before me as to what injustice has been caused to him. The orders passed by the Consolidation authorities are based on justice and law applicable on the subject. This being so, the petition is devoid of force and as such, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H . B.T. /F‑47/L on dismissed.