1975 PLP 263 (SCMR)

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (A. R. Shaukat Advocate Supreme Court with lair) instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners. Bashir .9hmad AM. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh, Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

4. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and

6. Date of hearing : 7th January 1975. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J-- This dispute arises out of a consolidation proceeding and the petitioners have become aggrieved by the matter in which the lands which were originally in possession of their predecessor‑in. Interest were taken away and substituted by other lands. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners are that as a result of the consolidation proceeding they were allotted lands which were less than that possessed by their predecessor‑in‑interest before the consoli dation, and that the lands allotted to the petitioners were not according to the classification originally sanctioned by the consolidation officer on 10th of December 1964. It was also contended that consolidation without classification or evaluation of the land was not contemplated under the` law governing consolidation, and inasmuch as the scheme under which the consolidation was determined was without such classification or evaluation it was not legal. It was argued with reference to this contention that the consolidation was in breach of the instructions issued on the subject. The petitioners claimed that before the consolidation their predecessor had possessed 174 kanals and 9 marlas of cultivated land and 180 kanals and 9 marlas of uncultivated Ian,‑I. The petitioners complained that after consolidation they got only 18 kanals of cultivated uncultivated lands. It appears, however, from the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) dated the l4th of October 1973 (vide Annexure 'A' at page 40) that the petitioners before the consolidation had actually possessed 354 kanals and 15 marals of land and that after the consolidation they were given 354 kanals and 5 marlas, i.e., a deficit of 10 marlas only. This fact was not disputed by the petitioners before the High Court. In the High Court the petitioner's grievance was that the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated the 19th of October 1973, had not been implemented and less area was sought to be given to the petitioners. Therefore, the first contention is not only factually incorrect but also is not available to the petitioners as it was never raised before the High Court. As regards the second contention it will be presently seen that this is also based upon an incorrect premise. The classification alleged to be sanctioned by the consolidation officer appears to be only a draft scheme which was proposed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. On a reference to the said classification which appears as Annexure "R/1" at pages 13 to 22‑B of the supplementary paper‑book put in on behalf of respondent No. 4 Jamil Khan, it is abundantly clear that the objections to "Tariqa‑e Taqsim" were invited by the Assistant Consolidation officer by his order dated the 10th of December 1964. This order was published in the Deh (village) in question. There is nothing to show that this draft scheme As ever sanctioned or approved by the Consolidation Officer. On the contrary it appears that in accordance with the notice inviting objections to the draft scheme representations were made against the proposed "Tariqa‑e Taqsim"and on reference to the general assembly of the village a modified "Tariqa‑e‑Taqsim" was sanctioned on the 29th of September 1966, and it was approved by the Additional Deputy Commiqsioner (Consolidation) on the 12th of October ;96,, vide Annvrure "R/5" at pages 28‑31 of the supplementary paper‑took filed by respondent No.

4. The modified Tariqa‑e‑Taqsim shows that it was determined on the 29th of September 1966, in presence of and consultation with all the owners of lands and the Mushawarti Committee. The modified scheme categorically stated that the land should be distributed on the basis of cultivated and uncultivated lands and that there would be no classification of the soil. It may be mentioned here that the consolidation proceeding originated under sec tion 3 (1) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, at the instance of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura. There is nothing in the said Ordinance which prevents the framing of a consolidation scheme as a result of agreement of or consent by all the land holders of a village, and there is therefore, no force in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the consolidation could only be made on the basis of classification of or evaluation of the lands. On the contrary a reference to the provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance, and rule 10 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1960, shows that efforts should be made by the Consolidation Officer to bring about an amicable‑ settlement. The instructions sought to be relied on do not appear to have any statutory force and they cannot override the provisions of the Ordinance and the rules framed thereunder. The scheme in question appears to have been made after having been duly published, and with the agreement of all the land‑owners of the village. We, therefore, see no illegality in the framing of the scheme in question. As regards the third contention it map be observed that although the Rules framed under the said Ordinance contemplated consolidation) on the basis of classification of soil and have laid down methods for such determination there is nothing either in the Ordinance or the Rules as we have said earlier which precluded all the parties concerned to arrive at an arrangement mutually beneficial to them, A reference to the order of the Board of Revenue shows that as a result of the consolidation proceeding the plots of the petitioners decreased from 37 to

5. Similarly the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated the 19th of October 1973, shows that the lands finally allotted to the petitioners were more or less contiguous and that no injustice was done to the petitioners. The case reported in P L D 1970 W. P. (Rev.) 1 has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present case the parties had agreed to the scheme. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.