quality, value and location of the land are taken into consideration, while allotting consolidated land and area alone is no criteria. In what circumstances 1 Kanal 12 Marla land was allotted in khasra no.281 in lieu of 1 Bigha 1 Biswa land of khasra no.2942 and whether any other land of Badlu etc. had been included for calculating it, was to be shown by the plaintiff, by adducing cogent evidence, which has not been proved by the plaintiffs. It is not disputed that the construction over khasra no.281 (old no.2942) existed even at the time of consolidation, therefore, they were allowed to retain their possession. This fact has been proved on record from Ex.D4 Khatoni Paimaish and Ex.D5 Khatoni Istemal and other documents, prepared at the time of consolidation of holdings in the village. No doubt, Jamabandi Ex.P1, on the basis of which, plaintiffs are staking their claim on the suit bara, is being reflected in their name, but it is evident that only to create cause of action in their favour and bringing the suit within limitation, they have resorted to a story that the defendants were given the house as a licensee, when they needed the house on the outskirts of the village. This story has not been corroborated by any supporting evidence, oral or documentary.
