MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Versus STATE

ORDER

1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑These two petitions for special leave to appeal arise out of consolidation proceedings held in village Talwandi, Rahwali of Tehsil and District Gujranwala. The dispute between the parties relates to a newly created field marked as Khasra No. 38. It was allocated in the consolidation scheme to Manzoor Hussain, respondent No. 4. Later it was taken away from him for the purpose of a common passage. As the area allocated to him became less than his entitlement, he agitated against the creation of the passage. By an order dated 1‑4‑1978 the Board of Revenue eliminated the passage and allowed him to keep the land. The petitioner in CPSLA No. 597 Filed a review petition before the Board but it was dismissed with the following observation:‑‑

2. "It is very clear that the passage eliminated in the impugned order is a passage passing through killa Nos. 31 and 32 of Manzoor Hussain respondent No. 1. No other right holder is, affected by the impugned order."

3. Subsequently, the order of the Board of Revenue was implemented in the Revenue record through appropriate mutations. The petitioner challenged the mutations recorded in this regard but without any success. They then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but their writ petition was dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

4. The matters whether the passage in question should have been allowed to remain or whether the area covered by the passage should have been given to Manzoor Hussain were matters entirely for the Consolidation authorities to decide and the writ jurisdiction of the High Court was not the proper forum for agitating these matters. The question whether the consequential mutation was in. accord with the order made in the Court of consolidation proceedings can morel ‑appropriately be raised in a Civil Court. We wound accordingly dismiss these petitions.

5. M.A.K./A‑366/S Petition dismissed.