P L D 1960 W (PLP)

Haider Shah and Syed Amir Ahmad Shah for Owners. This revision has arisen out of a reference made by the commissioner, Peshawar Division, who, agreeing with the recom mendations of the Collector, Attock District, has suggested that the consolidation scheme of village Ghura Gushti should be revised. The facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme in this village was confirmed on 8‑6‑1956. An appeal was lodged before the Collector, Attock District, but he dismissed it on 17‑7‑1957. One Abdul Ghafoor Khan lodged a second appeal before the Commissioner on the 30th December 1957. The Commissioner, Peshawar Division, remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. The Collector upheld the decision of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal on 18‑2‑

58. Some other appeals were also filed but they were dismissed as time‑barred. The mutation for Ishtarak and partition was actually sanctioned on 12‑2‑58, by the Consolidation Officer. The records of this case remained with Sardar Khan Patwari who is alleged to have made a number of alterations in the Khataunis, Field Books, Mussa vis and other relevant records. These were noticed by the consolidation Officer and he reported the matter to the Collector on 13‑8‑1958. A criminal case was lodged against the Patwari. Subsequently, it was also discovered that some consolidation record was also missing. The EASO went to the spot. It was discovered that 625 Khewatdars were satisfied with the consolidation work while 328 were dissatisfied. Out of the latter, the objections of 81 Khewatdars were found to be reason able. 1n view of the circumstances of the case, the EASO recommended that the consolidation work of this village should be revised. The Collector endorsed his recommendations and papers were sent to the Commissioner who has also recommended revision. Out of the persons present, a section wishes that the case should be reopened while the others present have argued that, as change of possession took place in 1956, and there have been subsequent improvements and even change of hands, the matter should be allowed to remain as it is. I have considered the peculiar circumstances of the case and have come to the conclusion that this is a fit case where revisional powers should be exercised. I am, however, quite clear in my mind that there is no question of revising the mode of partition which is duly sanctioned. The trouble, however, has been that, in certain cases, the partition has taken place according to the sanctioned mode of partition while, A in other cases, the mode of partition has been ignored either partially or wholly. These cases, therefore, require reopening. I, therefore, pass the following order:‑ (a) The sanctioned mode of partition will remain untouched and partition shall take place in accordance there with; (b) In cases where actual partition has taken place in accord ance with the mode of partition, there will be no reopening of the matter; but (c) where partition has not been made in accordance with the mode of partition either partially or wholly, the matter will be reopened and actual partition shall be made in accordance with the sanctioned mode of partition. A. H. Order accordingly.