P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Partition of shamilat‑Petitioners having no ownership in village after selling their entire proprietary area nor claiming hissadari possession‑Petitioners allocated block of land contiguous to land sold out by them, as only alternative. Khizar Tamimi for Petitioners. M. Z. Khalil for the State. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 21st of June 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consoli dation), Lahore, whereby he rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners. The facts of the case are that the petitioners sold their entire proprietary area in 1933. During consolidation operations, the shamilat area was partitioned and the A.C.O. made certain proposals in respect of petitioners. They did not agree and therefore, the case was referred to the A.D.C. (Consolidation). The A.D.C. (Consolidation) gave them a compact block towards the west of the village. The petitioners felt dissatisfied and went in revision to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) but it was dismissed. Hence this second revision. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. The main grievance of the petitioners is that 119 kanals and 15 marlas which was originally the share of one Mst. Jiwan, has not been included in the shamilat while calculating the share of the petitioners, Mst. Jiwan died before Independence, but no mutation was entered. After Independence, her share was declared evacuee and it was entered as such in the revenue papers at the time the scheme was framed. Unless the existing revenue entries are amended, this area cannot be included in the shamilat deh. So far as the balance of shamilat area is concerned, the share of the petitioners has been rightly calculated. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they‑should be given land near the Abadi on the ground that they were ex‑owners of the village. When the shamilat is partitioned, the owners get land during consolidation operations either in their previous ownership or according to their hissadari possession or at a place where the new ownership is being settled. The petitioners did not have any previous ownership because they sold their entire proprietary area. No hissadari possession is claimed. The only alternative left, therefore, for the staff was to give the petitioners a block of land contiguous to the persons to whom their proprietary rights had been sold. There is, therefore, no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In these circumstances, the revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Petition dismissed.