MUHAMMAD JAVED Versus ASGHAR ALI

ORDER

This writ petition calls in question an order dated 8-9-1983, of Mr. A.K. Khalid, Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's revision petition was dismissed.

2. Khasra Nos. 24 and 25 of Square No. 62 and Khasra Nos. 10 and 11 of ' Square No. 63 in dispute were allotted initially to the present petitioner Muhammad Javed in pursuance of a consolidation scheme confirmed on 30-6 1979. The respondent, Asghar Ali preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sheikhupura, to get these on an assertion that while he was an owner in Square No-62, the Khasra Nos. 10 and 11 of Square No.63 were relinquished in his favour by their original owner. His appeal, however, failed and he preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division, who in his order dated 14-4-1980, reversed the findings of the Collector and restored this land to him. Aggrieved by it the present petitioner preferred a further revision petition before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who dismissed it.

3. The main question raised in the writ petition is that the respondent Asghar Ali did not implead the present petitioner, Muhammad J9ved in his appeal brought before the Collector, and that he could not in law implead hi in subsequently before the Commissioner. In other words, the plea was that having failed to challenge the allocation of the land in favour of the petitioner in time before the Collector by way of an appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer attained finality and that the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner was not in accordance with law.

4. The petitioner raised this plea before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, but it did not find favour. In fact, he was impleaded before the Commissioner even though he had not been joined as such before the Collector. It was pointed out by making a reference to R/I that the petitioner vas acting in collusion with the Patwari, who, for long, did not disclose his true name and that for this reason in the memorandum of appeal he was shown as Abdul Majid (rather than Muhammad Javed). It was argued that this discrepancy was later rectified.

5. Since the petitioner had an occasion to put his case not only before tile Commissioner but also the learned Member, Board of Revenue, he cannot claim grievance that he had not been impleaded before the Collector or that a formal appeal had not been brought against him as such during the prescribed limitation. The objection advanced in this behalf was not accepted by the Courts below ant: for good reasons. It is not a case where the petitioner had absolutely no occasion whatsoever to agitate before the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, he cannot make any capital out of it.

6. The precise question is of allocating land in consolidation. It is not open to the High Court to enter into the merits or demerits of such allotment. Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others 1970 S C M R 292 is on the point. It was found that in fact the petitioner had been given a little more than what he owned before consolidation proceedings, and further that his fragmented land was lumped together to make it more convenient and profitable for him. Be that as it may, there is no merit for interference with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, and the petition is dismissed in limine.-

M.Y.H./3251/L Petition dismissed in limine