1988 PLP 2426 (CLC)

Malik Allah Wasaya for Petitioner. Hamid Ullah Khan Niazi for Respondents. This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order, dated 16‑2‑1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, whereby revision petition filed by the respondents was accepted.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 31‑3‑1984. The respondents filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), who dismissed it on 6‑7‑1986. Thereafter, the respondents went in revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who accepted it through his impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondents were only purchasers of some land from the persons who themselves had no actual possession anywhere, therefore, they were not entitled to claim any specific piece of land. The appeal of the respondents was badly time‑barred by more than two years. They did not file any application for the condonation of delay. The collector (Cons.), dismissed the same on merits although it could have been thrown away simply on the point of limitation. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.), without considering the question of limitation illegally took away 36 Kanals of land from the Khata of the petitioner. That land was developed by the petitioner after hard labour. It should not be taken away from him after three years.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that his clients have purchased a share of land from Khata No. 292 in which the petitioner was not a co‑sharer. As such he was not entitled to get land in that Khata but during consolidation operations he was unduly accommodated by the field staff at that place. In fact be held his share in Khata No. 133, therefore, he was better entitled to get that land. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) vide his impugned order has rightly adjusted him according to his entitlement in Khata No.

133. With regard to filing a time‑barred appeal before the Collector (Cons.), the learned counsel has stated that since consolidation scheme was not confirmed with their consent, therefore, the question of limitation was immaterial and the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has rightly redressed the complaint of the respondents, which calls for no interference.

5. I have considered these arguments and have examined the record. I have also perused the sketch map prepared by the Patwari consolidation. The Register Scheme does not appear to have been thumb‑marked/signed by the respondents. One Abdul Rehman has put his signatures on their behalf. I am not inclined to consider it consent of the respondents as I do not find myself satisfied with this situation. That is why the Collector (Cons.) while passing orders did not give any weight to the point of limitation. It is also apparent on the face of record that the petitioner was not a co‑sharer in Khata No. 292, whereas the respondents were bona fide purchasers of land from that Khata. Therefore, they were better entitled to get that land as compared to the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has appreciated this aspect of the case and adjusted the parties as per their entitlement. The petitioner was rightly adjusted in Khata No. 133 where he held his major share. The upshot of the case is that the petitioner has failed to establish his preferential right over the land in dispute. I see no force in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. A . A . / 275/R Revision dismissed.