P L D 1965 W (PLP)

‑Inclusion of State land in consolidation operations already concluded found to be prejudicial to interests of State‑‑Additional Commissioner directing fresh con solidation of village and exclusion of State land from scheme Board declined to interfere. Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 25th of September 1962 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Con solidation), Lahore, whereby he directed that the consolidation of the village should be taken afresh and the State land should be excluded. The facts of the case are that without any notice to Govern ment or any authority from them, the A. C. O. included the State land in consolidation operations and sanctioned the scheme on 21‑1‑1961. When the Collector came to know about it, he appointed a Committee to examine the matter. The Committee did not find that the interests of Government had suffered, but the Collector did not agree with the views of the Committee and held that the Government had suffered a loss. He, therefore, moved the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who passed the order mentioned above. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is established that the State land was included during consolidation operations. It has also been borne out that this has been done without any notice to Government or any permission from the Government or its representative. It is true that the Committee was of a different view, but it is the Collector who has to satisfy himself personally, under the existing instructions, that the State interests have not been adversely affected. The Collector, was, therefore, within his rights to move the Additional Commissioner in the light of the conclusion to which he came after considering all the aspects of the case. When consolidation was done under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936, State land was excluded because the Government had not relaxed restrictions imposed on such land under the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. During consolidation operations under 'the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 such land was also to be excluded, but the matter was not clarified till 11‑2‑1961 when the question was examined on a reference made by one of the Additional Deputy Commissioners. It was then decided that in future State land should be excluded, but in the case of those revenue estates where consolidation operations had been concluded, the Collector of the District was required to satisfy personally that the interests of the State had not been prejudiced. He was then to obtain the approval of the higher authorities. The present case falls under the second category and the Collector rightly moved the Additional Commissioner in the matter. The facts given in the order of the Additional Commissioner clearly show that the interest of the State have suffered. I, therefore, see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Petition dismissed.