2015 PLP 1778 (MLD)

WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).

This revision petition has been filed against order dated 2-12-2011, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue). Multan, whereby appeal of Ghulam Rasool etc. the present petitioners was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and record perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners filed an appeal against confirmation of the consolidation scheme of village Kaherwala, which was dismissed by learned Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Multan on 4-4-2002 and revision petition was also dismissed by learned Additional Commissioner on 2-12-2010. The impugned orders are against the law and facts of the case. Through the disputed confirmation of the consolidation scheme, very precious land bearing khasra Nos. 1, 17, 15, 16, 22, 23 and 25 measuring 38-kanals, 4-marlas and 39/4/1 measuring 5-kanals owned and possessed by the petitioners was included in the scheme of respondents without any lawful justification. The said land was developed by the petitioners expending huge amount and putting in hard labour. In lieu thereof, inferior quality land was given to the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer mentioned the land in question in Parchi Kham given to the petitioners. But, at the time of confirmation, other land was given to them. The classification of land was to be kept in view, but it was not done. The appeal of petitioners was within time from the date of knowledge but it was treated as time barred. The impugned orders were passed without appreciating contention of the petitioners. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.

4. The respondents did not turn up in the court even after observation of all the legal obligations, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that consolidation scheme of village Kaherwala, Tehsil Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan was confirmed by Consolidation Officer, Multan vide order dated 3 l-7-2001. Feeling aggrieved by that order, Ghulam Rasool etc. present petitioners preferred an appeal in the court of learned Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Multan, which was dismissed vide order dated 4-4-2002. The operative part of the order is as under:--

6. Aggrieved by the order, Ghulam Rasool etc. the present petitioners filed revision petition in the court of learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, which met the same fate vide order dated 2-12-2011. The operative part is as under:-- "I have heard the counsel of the parties and perused the record. The record shows that respondents were owners of barren land who handed over the land to the petitioners under an agreement of Adhalpi ( ) and in this regard mutation No.428 was sanctioned through which petitioners became owners of land. The petitioners under the conditions of Adhlapi agreement were under legal obligations to develop the whole land but they did not do so and develop the half land. The whole land was under the possession of the petitioners and they cannot claim that land under their possession has been included in the scheme of respondents. The consolidation officer Multan has rightly included the developed land in the scheme of respondents. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has affixed his thumb impression on his scheme/wanda in which barren land was included. The petitioners were well aware of this fact but they filed a time-barred appeal before the lower court who after considering all the facts of the case has rightly rejected the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality/irregularity in the impugned order. In view of aforementioned reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and same is rejected".

7. The issue is that petitioners got the land of respondents measuring 90-K situated in mouza Kaherwah, Tehsil Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan on the basis of "Adhlapy" vide Mutation No.428, in year 1963. Accordingly, the possession of whole of the land was transferred to predecessor of the present petitioners. The readings into the issue shows that "Adhlapi" is form of tenure under which proprietary rights are acquired in land, through agreements whether oral or written, by reclamation or expenditure of capital. In the gazetteer of Dera Ghazi Khan District "Adhlapi" was described as one of the forms of land tenure prevalent in that District. The relevant portion reads as under:-- "This is every common form. The proprietor of a well estate not possessing a well gives half of his land in proprietary rights to an outsider who sinks a well and thereupon acquires the proprietary rights of half the well and of land attached to it".

8. This term has also been elaborated by renowned scholar Sir James H.Douie. The relevant para of the Douie's Settlement Manual is reproduced below:-- "The adhlopi tenure of the south-western Punjab must be noticed. A man who sinks a well in land which does not belong to him with the owner's permission becomes proprietor of half the land which it commands. He very commonly cultivates or arranges for the cultivation of the whole of the land, takes half of the proprietor's share of the produce, and pays half the land-revenue. Whether he has a right of occupancy in the half of the land which he does not own appears to be doubtful, and it has been held that in cases of dispute, either party may enforce partition".

9. So, it is established that as per this transaction under "Adhlapi" the petitioners were bound to develop whole of the land and accordingly the fully developed land was to be distributed between the petitioners and respondents equally. But, the petitioners could develop half of the land till year 2001, when the consolidation of the land was undertaken. The consolidation officer while finalizing the scheme vide order dated 31-7-2001 gave developed piece of land into the share of the respondents being owner of the land and in view of matrix or "Adhlapy". This distribution was made with the consent of the father of the present petitioners. So, they cannot go beyond the consent of their predecessor. Further, as per term "Adhlapy" the petitioners were bound to give half of portion of the land to get themselves entitled for remaining half of the land. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of same principle, which does not merit any interference. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed and impugned order 2-12-2011, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan is upheld. HBT/21/Rev. Petition dismissed.