1989 PLP 2475 (CLC)

Subhan Khan for Petitioners. Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondent No.l. This revision petition has been directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 4‑6‑1983, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons), Lahore Division, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of village Chathian Wala, Tehsil and District Kasur was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 29‑6‑1976 against which respondent No.1 (Allah Ditta) filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) requesting therein that an area of 240 Kanals was allotted to him by the Border Area Allotment Committee but he had been given less land than his entitlement. The Collector (Cons.) accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Consolidation Officer with the direction to look into the matter personally and make report after thorough investigation in consultation with the Border Area Authorities. The Assistant Consolidation Officer formulated fresh proposal which was again sent back to the Assistant Consolidation Officer with the direction that respondent No.l (Allah Ditta) was still dissatisfied with the report. In compliance with the remand order the Assistant Consolidation Officer made fresh proposal and sent the case to the Collector, who made certain adjustments between the parties, vide his order dated 6‑3‑1983. This order of the Collector was challenged by the petitioners in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who vide his impugned order dismissed the appeal of the petitioners with the observation that the area in dispute was allotted to the respondent No.l by the Border Allotment Committee and the Collector rightly withdrew the same from the Khata of the petitioners. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) also observed that the parties should agitate their case before the Border Area Allotment Committee if they so desired.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Dakheelkars in this Mauza owned land measuring 131 kanals Karim Bakhsh Dakheelkar owned 1/4th out of this land who migrated to India. The remaining land was 98 kanals and 5 marlas. The petitioners were entitled to this land. However, in the consolidation operations, the entitlement of the petitioners was determined as 84 kanals and 15 marlas. The petitioners were actually given land measuring 84 kanals and 12 marlas. The present respondents went in appeal against this decision. Resultantly, the entitlement of the petitioners was curtailed by the Consolidation Officer vide his order passed on 26‑10‑1978, who decreased the entitlement of the petitioners to an extent of 31 kanals and 12 marlas. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the order of the Consolidation Officer went in appeal before the‑ learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his order dated 25‑3‑1979 assessed the entitlement of the petitioners as 98 kanals 5 marlas. He also observed in his order that the entitlement of the petitioners determined as 86 kanals and 14 marlas was wrong. The learned counsel for the petitioners went on arguing that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for reassessing the entitlements of the respective parties. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 2‑6‑1980 decreased the entitlement of the petitioners by 20 Kanals as against 32 kanals and 15 marlas originally made, and gave it away to the respondents. The petitioners went in appeal before the learned Collector. The latter, vide his order dated 6‑3 1983 restored the order of the Consolidation Officer passed on 26‑10‑1978. Vide this order the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons) reduced 31 kanals 12 marlas from the entitlement of the petitioners and gave it away to the respondents. The petitioners challenged this decision of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons) before the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons) Lahore. However, the petition was dismissed vide impugned order. The learned counsel further argued that since the petitioners are Dakheelkars, their land cannot be allocated to any party. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original scheme as sanctioned may be restored which was passed on the basis of the consent of the parties.

4. Rebutting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent No.l stated that the respondent has been allocated land according to his entitlement by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The petitioners should have approached the Border Area Allotment Committee if they were dissatisfied with any decision made by the latter. The petitioners should have refrained from dragging the respondent into these Courts. The learned counsel further argued that fact of the matter is that the petitioners got their Dakheelkari rights after having themselves fully satisfied and also got legally protected through Mutation No.704, dated 3‑4‑1979. This was in full satisfaction of the entitlement of the petitioners as enshrined in the Jamabandi for the years 1964‑65 a copy of which was presented by the learned counsel for the respondent No.l. The learned counsel for the respondent also stated that in the light of the amendment in Section 114 of the Tenancy Act, the entry as `Dakheelkari', (Occupancy Tenant) had been deleted, therefore, the names of the petitioners should not have appeared in the post‑Consolidation Record. The respondent has been given land according to his entitlement. The petitioners have got no case and their petition merits dismissal.

5. The Patwari of the Border Area Allotment Committee presented the relevant record. The record showed that an area of 237 kanals and 8 marlas was allotted to the respondent. Out of this some land was cancelled but later on this order was amended and the cancelled area was restored to the respondent later on. The record presented by the Patwari (Cons) revealed that the, entitlement of the respondent was 213 kanals 17 marlas. However, the area which was subsequently restored to the respondent had not been shown in the Khatooni.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record produced by the Patwari of the Border Area Allotment Committee and Patwari (Cons) reveals that the respondent Allah Dilta was allotted an area of 237 kanals and 8 marlas by the Border Area Allotment Committee pre‑Consolidation. Out of this some land was cancelled. According to Zer Kar Register Haqdaran Zamin, the previous holding of the respondent was 213 Kanals and 17 marlas. So, the Khatooni Ishtimal, as well as Naqsha Hakdaran for the purpose of Consolidation Operations were prepared and the respondent was allocated land accordingly. Later on the cancelled area was restored to the respondent by the Border Area Allotment Committee but it was not incorporated in the record and the respondent was allocated less land than his actual allotment. Due to the reasons the respondent's deficiency was made up by the Courts below, after withdrawing some land from the petitioners. The contention of the learned ! counsel for the petitioners that Dakheelkari land relating to the petitioners could not be allotted, no doubt, is correct, but the Consolidation Authority was not authorized to cancel the same or to refuse to make its implementation in the Revenue record. If the allotment was illegal, it should have been challenged in the competent Court. Taking into consideration the above facts, I have come to the conclusion that the parties were accommodated as a result of consolidation, according to their previous rights. No one was put to any harm, therefore, I see no solid B ground to interfere with the impugned order, hence I reject the revision petition. The judgment of the case was reserved, therefore, parties to be informed. MA.K./320/R Petition dismissed.