1992 PLP 692 (MLD)

Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan for Petitioners. Muhammad Hussain Baluch for Respondents, This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order, dated 3‑6‑1989 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Mohibpur, Tehsil and District Khushab was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 31‑12‑1988. 'Feeling aggrieved the present respondents filed an appeal in the Court of the Collector (Cons.) on two contentions which was partly accepted vide his order, dated 28‑3‑1989. The contention of the respondents for a path through Rec. No.572, Killas Nos.4/1, 4/2 and 5/1 was not allowed. However, on the basis of Fard Qabza certain amendments in the Wandas of the parties were made. The respondents being dissatisfied assailed this order through revision petition in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division who vide his impugned order accepted it. He held in his order that the land of the respondents was situated within the land of the present petitioners and the respondents did not have any path to reach the Katcha road, therefore, path to the respondents was provided at the cost of respondents by withdrawing 13 Marlas of land from the Khata of the respondents and giving it to the petitioners in lieu of the said path. Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents' time‑barred appeal before the Collector (Cons.) was partly accepted but their plea for petitioners' area for a path was rejected on 28‑3‑1989. However, Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division had accepted the respondents' appeal on 3‑6‑1989 illegally and the respondents were given petitioners' area required for a path without the Petitioners' consent. The disputed private path was not provided in the Masawaa. Tariqa Taqseem and private land could not have been given without its owner's consent as held in N L R 1980 Rev. 21.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained, in rebuttal, that the present petitioners had not challenged the Collector (Cons.)'s order, dated 28‑3‑1989 before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and the ruling quoted by the petitioners was not applicable in the instant case. The respondents had not been given land at petitioners' cost. The respondents had been provided a path and equivalent land had been surrendered by them which meant the exchange of land. No loss had been caused to the petitioners thereby.

5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record and sccn the sketch map produced by the Patwari. Masawada Tariqa 'Taqseem applied to old and new public paths for which no compensation had to be paid. In this particular case the respondents' holding is totally surrounded by petitioners' holding and there is no regular access to the respondents' land. In normal circumstances access is provided without objection by land owners but in strained situation this access can well be denied which can, and usually does, result in feuds and fights. By providing a path connecting the respondents' land with the path already in existence this possibility of future breach of peace and litigation has been eliminated by the additional Commissioner (Cons.). No loss has either been caused to the petitioners because the respondents have surrendered equivalent land (13 Marlas) which is contiguous with the petitioners' land. It has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the authority quoted was not applicable in the present case. The Masawada Tariqa Taqseem too is neither expected nor can cater to all individual situation. The petitioners in this case, however, face a difficulty that there is a watercourse passing through this area which has also been mentioned in the impugned order. The respondents have undertaken before me that they will construct a culvert on this watercourse within three months so that petitioners have unhindered access to their holding. In case of respondents' failure to implement the assurance, the petitioners can again seek intervention of this Court. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms upholding the impugned order. AA./453/R Order accordingly.