1992 PLP 660 (CLC)

(a) the market value of the properties concerned; and‑ (b) the feasibility of demarcating the new area to which the encumbrance is to be attached." It is evident that while transferring the encumbrance the market value of the properties concerned is to be taken into consideration, which means that the encumbrance can be transferred to a property of an equal value, which may include larger or smaller area in ratio with the value. In the instant case the encumbrance was transferred to the river bank and both the petitioners and Ghulam Ali respondent expressed their view before me that the disputed land was of better quality than the land on the river. But the Consolidation Officer treated both on equal footing.

8. Another fact which is evident from the perusal of the sketch is that the petitioners' main holding is and around Squares Nos.l3, 14 and 15 and the disputed land wits quite contiguous to their main holding, instead they were given land in exchange of subject property in Squares Nos. 35 and

36. Apart from erroneous a appreciation of the facts and legal position of the case and by Ignoring more than 100 years long‑standing possession of the petitioners the authorities below also do not seem to have considered the principle of consolidation. If the land in their possession had been given to the petitioners that would have been quite in keeping with the principles of consolidation and' their total holding would have formed one compact block. There was no compelling reason for transferring this encumbrance to afar‑off place and thus increasing the number of the plots of the petitioners. who are mostly women and at least two of them are widows. It has been held in PLD 1987 S C 16 that "where a consolidation scheme is found to be so offensive to the requirements of law, appears on the face of it to be unjust and unfair, Consolidation Authorities are under a duty to reject it even though it be based on compromise or undertaking among the parties or, most of them". 9 The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the revision succeeds and the orders of the Courts below are set aside and consequently the following changes, in the schemes of? the parties, shall be made:‑‑ Scheme ?????????? Name of the parties ‑‑? Area to be??????? ‑‑???????? Area to be ‑? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? excluded?????????????????????? included 164????????????????? Reference mutation?????? Kha. No. 35/10/1???????? Khasra No. 15/ ??????????????????????? No. 719, attested???????? (3K‑14M)??????????????????? ____________? ??????????? on 15‑11‑1989??????????????????????? Kha. No. 36/??????????????? 2????????? ‑ 8K‑OM ??????????? Tabdel Milkiat????????????? __________??????????????? 8/2?????? ‑ 2K‑16M ??????????????????????? ‑‑‑??????? ‑‑???????????????????? 6????????? - 8K‑OM???????? 9???????? ‑ 8K‑OM ??????????? Mst. Alam Khatoon????? 7/2?????? ‑ 4K‑OM???????? 13/1???? ‑ 5K‑2M ??????????????????????? etc. Petitioners????????????? 14/3???? ‑ OK‑4M???????????????????? ________? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 15??????? ‑ 8K‑OM???????? Total : 23K‑18M ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Total .? 23K‑18M??????? Qittas ‑ 4 Qittas ‑ 5‑ 126????? ?????????? Ghulam Ali etc. Khasra No. 15/ ?????????? Khasra No.35/ ??????????????????????? Respondents???????????????? ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑??????????????????????????????????? 10/1?? 3K-14M 2 ‑ 8K‑OM ?8/2 ‑ 2K‑16M???????????? Khasra No.36 ??????????? 9 ???????? ?8K‑OM????????????????????????????????? ??????????? 13/1 ‑ 5K‑2M ???????????? 6 ? 8K-0M ??????????????????????????????????????????????? 7/2-4K-0M ??????????? Total : 23K‑18M????????? 14/3 ‑ OK‑4M ??????????? 15 ? 8K-0M Qittas ‑ 4????????????????????? Total : 23K‑18M Qittas ‑ 5 A.A./419/R????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.