1992 PLP 537 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Abdul Salim for Petitioner. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Respondent No.9. Date of hearing: 6th May, 1991. This Constitutional petition arises out of order dated 18‑4‑1970 passed by the Member 'Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Lahore, whereby on a revision petition filed by Fazalur Rehman Mahmood Khan, respondent No.9, against the order dated 31‑3‑1969 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division, Lahore, he directed that Khata Nos.28 and 29 be reverted to their original position as existed prior to consolidation. He remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Sheikhupura, for fresh decision with further direction that out of Khata Nos.28 and 29 if some land was allotted to any other land owner, he be heard and allotted land at some other suitable place.

2. Learned4ounsel for the petitioner contended that the consolidation operation in the Chak No.4/RB, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura, concluded in the Year 1967. Nape of the owners of the village preferred appeal against the consolidation of to holdings. After lapse of about two years one application was moved by respondent No.9 for change of the possession of the land allocated to him wring consolidation. The Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27‑1‑969 delivered possession of the land allotted to him out of square No.16. This order was challenged in appeal by Mst. Nazir Begum before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), who vide order dated 31 3 1969 remanded he case to the A.C.O., Sheikhupura. This order was assailed in revision by Fazdur Rehman Mahmood Khan, respondent No.9, as aforesaid, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as no appeal against the confirmation of the consolidation scheme was preferred, the learned Member, Board of Revenue could not direct the reversion of Khata Nos.28 and 29 to the original owners as it existed prior to consolidation particularly when none was aggrieve against the Vandas allocated to them during consolidation operations. It was argued that‑if the impugned order had been acted upon, it World have given rise to number of appeals and engaged the land owners in protracted litigation.

4. No one has appeared to oppose this petition. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 supported the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The perusal of the impugned order substantiates the contention. Raised learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is untenable particularly when no appeal against the confirmation of the consolidation scheme was filed inter se the parties it is, therefore, neither just nor legal to allow the settled matters to be reopened after lapse of over two decades specially when the land owners must have invested in the development of their lands after consolidation.

5. In the result, this petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, is declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. As no one has contested this petition, there shall be no order as to costs. AA./N‑7/L Petition accepted.