1990 PLP 1953 (CLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 11 & 13‑‑‑Appeal, dismissal of‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑ Appeal filed before Appellate Court below was time‑barred to the extent of a year and a half‑‑‑Such inordinate delay in riling appeal having remained unexplained, appeal, held, was rightly dismissed and revision petition against dismissal order merited no consideration. Yousaf Ali Malik for Petitioner. Hamid Asghar Sheikh for Respondents. This revision petition has been filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1900, against the order dated 10‑10‑1988, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Mahal Ghari, Tchsil Pasrur, District Sialkot was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 4‑7‑1985. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the confirmation order in the Court of the learned Collector (Cons.) who vide his order dated 1‑3‑1987 remanded the same to the Consolidation Officer. In pursuance to the remand order the Consolidation Officer submitted his report to the learned Collector (Cons.) who vide his order dated 17‑7‑1988 rejected the appeal. The petitioner went in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his impugned order also dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in remand the Consolidation Officer was directed to visit the spot and then prepare a proposal but the Consolidation Officer did not visit the spot anal he formed a proposal in his office. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer did not comply with the direction of the learned Collector (Cons.). The learned Collector (Cons.) did not consider this aspect and decided the case against facts. The previous holdings of the petitioner were in one compact block pre‑consolidation. During the Consolidation operations he was allocated in one block but his entire previous land was not restored to him in compliance with the basic principle of consolidation. The land comprising Khasras Nos.16 and 38 was previously held by the petitioner but the same was allocated to the respondents without any justification. This deprived the petitioner of access to the road. Concluding his arguments he prayed for the restoration of Khasras Nos.l6 and 38.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended in rebuttal that the petitioner was a patwari. During the Consolidation operations he obtained plot willingly. For this reason he did not rile any appeal in time. After one and half years he preferred an appeal before the learned Collector (Cons.) who rightly rejected the same. The petitioner was allocated land in compact plot adjacent to the road. The demand with the assistance of getting path about Khasra No.38 is not justified. If the land asked for restored to the petitioner the plots of the respondents would be increased. It is settled law that path cannot be awarded to every plot, during the Consolidation operations.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the record. The plea of the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer failed to comply with the directions of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) is not tenable. These arguments must have been made before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) in the second appeal. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) having applied his mind rejected the plea. The petitioner is a patwari and there is considerable force in the arguments of the respondents that it is difficult to browbeat some one experienced in revenue matters in simple proceedings like consolidation. There are two consecutive orders passed against the petitioner and also there is weight in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that every plot cannot be provided a path in Consolidation operations. A perusal of the sketch map clearly shows that the petitioner has been provided some access to his land through Khasra No.20. Therefore, this plea of the petitioner merits no consideration at all. The original appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) was time‑barred to the extent of a year and a half. The g petitioner offered no reasons for this inordinate delay. For all these reasons the petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.

6. The judgment of the case was reserved, therefore, parties to be informed accordingly. H.B.T./341/R Revision dismissed.