1992 PLP 615 (CLC)

This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 19‑7‑1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division, whereby he. accepted the appeal of the respondents,

2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the Revenue Estate Bhakkar Nasheb, Tehsil and District Bhakkar was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance, ibid, by the Consolidation Officer on 31‑3‑1986. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal in the Court of Collector (Cons.), Mianwali who vide his order dated 18‑2‑1987 amended the wandas of the parties holding that the petitioner was not accommodated in consolidation operations in the land previously held by him. This order was assailed in appeal by the respondents in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division who vide his impugned order restored the original consolidation scheme holding that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) with a delay of 5 months and the delay had not been condoned Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had entitlement of only 1K‑12M. His previously held land in new Khasra No.137 (old 106) had been taken away and in lieu thereof he was given land in river which in fact meant that his total entitlement had been denied to him. His previously held land had been given to Abdur Rehman respondent who had no entitlement there.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and legal heirs of respondent No.5 endorsed the above contention. However, Abdur Rehman respondent stated that he had no entitlement where the petitioner had been given land in consolidation operations and therefore he should not be given any land there because it would result in greater number of plots and loss to the answering respondent.

5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the sketch map prepared by the Patwari it is evident that the petitioner is a very small right‑holder and he has been displaced without any justifiable reasons during the consolidation operation, and Abdur Rehman who is a much larger holder has been benefited at his cost. His small plot could have remained intact in new Khasra No.137 (old 106) and his shifting to the river amounts to virtual denial of his entitlement. The learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) found in the impugned order that the petitioner was not in possession of any land prior to consolidation but lack of possession should not mean denial of rights. Under these circumstances the revision petition succeeds; the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is restored the land held by him pre‑consolidation. The affected party. i.e. Abdur Rehman and/or any other should be given the land so given up by the petitioner. This order shall be implemented by the Consolidation Officer concerned through amendments in the respective scheme. AA./415/R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.