1992 PLP 705 (MLD)

These revision petitions are directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order, dated 7‑1‑1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Rawalpindi Division, whereby he rejected the revision petitions of the petitioner Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of village Jalalpur Sharif, Tehsil Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum was confirmed under section 10(4) of the Ordinance ibid by the Collector (Cons.) on 28‑12‑1981. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, filed appeals before' ,the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his order, dated 10‑3‑1984 remanded the cases to the Consolidation Officer, Jhelum with the direction that he should submit fresh proposal keeping in view the entitlement of the parties and decree of the Civil Court. The Consolidation Officer sent the case to the Consolidation Kanguno on 27‑10‑1985 where the parties allegedly came to the compromise. The Consolidation Officer agreeing with the proposal forwarded it to the Collector (Cons.) on 27‑2‑1986. The Collector (Cons.) on the request of the parties visited the spot and examined the record. At the time of visit of the Collector (Cons.) the petitioners resiled from the compromise. However, the Collector (Cons.) vide his order, dated 13‑5‑1987 made certain amendments in the wandas of the parties with the perceived consent of the parties. This order was assailed by the petitioners in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his impugned order dismissed the petition. He held in his order that the petitioners pressed only one contention that they had not been given land according to their entitlement in Sq. No.19 on Jhelum‑Pind Dadan Khan Road. But this contention was not borne out from the record. Hence these revision petitions.

3. This single order shall dispose of both the subject revision petitions as the facts and circumstances of both the cases are identical.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Saad contended that the petitioner had obtained 14K‑15M of land in a pre‑emption suit and it was not allocated to him during the consolidation operations. His other valuable land had also been withdrawn from him and in lieu thereof he was given inferior land at quite some distance from the main metalled road where his holding was situated. His garden and the area adjacent to the garden was also not given to him. In lieu thereof he had been given area at the bank of the river, where he had no pre‑consolidation entitlement. The petitioner's appeal was accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Jhelum, with specific observations on 10‑3‑1984. The Consolidation Officer further remanded the case to the Consolidation Kanungo for proposing amendments on the basis of an alleged compromise. The Consolidation Officer endorsed the Kanungo (Cons.)'s proposal and forwarded it to the Collector. (Cons.), who visited the spot on petitioner's request and made some adjustments in the respective schemes of the parties vide his order, dated 13‑5‑1987. Even this order did not touch the issue of land received through the Civil Court's decree. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was dismissed on 7‑1‑1988. The learned counsel emphatically denied that there was any compromise between the parties at any stage. The thumb‑impression of the petitioner was fictitious and forged one and there was no reason to accept inferior area in lieu of more valuable land. The case was remanded by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to the Consolidation Officer, who was not competent to further, remand to the Consolidation Kanungo and there was no need for the Consolidation officer to submit the case to the Collector (Cons.) The so‑called compromise was the result of fraud and collusion of consolidation authorities with the respondents who were very influential persons. The dispute concerned the petitioner's land in Sq. No.19 situated on the main Jhelum‑Pind Dadan Khan. road and the site plan prepared by the Consolidation Officials was factually wrong and incorrect. The petitioners had been given land on the road side other than their previously owned land towards the east of their earlier holding. This newly‑given land fell under Nalah and it tantamounted to virtual reduction in the entitlement of the petitioner. Habib and Mamoon Sadiq respondents had been accommodated in Sq. No.38 on the land previously held by the petitioners, where Habib did not have a single inch of entitlement. The tubewell of the petitioners had also been given to the respondents. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the petitioners may be restored their previous area.

5. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 4 maintained in the written arguments that the petitioners had filed time‑barred appeals which were remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision between the parties and the compromise was forwarded by the Consolidation Officer to the Collector (Cons.) because all the parties such as Gheba son of Meera, Mubarak and some others had not agreed to the compromise and, therefore, the cases had to be referred to the Collector (Cons.) under section 10(4) of the Ordinance ibid. The parties even compromised before the Collector (Cons.) when he visited the spot on 18‑4‑1987. However, the Collector (Cons.)'s order was not based on the compromise and was correct according to law and on merits. The petitioners had been adjusted by virtue of the Collector (Cons.)'s order according to their entitlement and choice. The original scheme was confirmed in 1981 and the land in possession of the answering respondents had been developed and petitioners had become greedy and trying to grab this valuable land.

6. The learned counsel for other answering respondents endorsed the arguments given above and emphasized that the compromise had taken place before the Kanungo (Cons.) and the Collector (Cons.) and, therefore, the revisions may be rejected.

7. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the sketch map prepared by the Patwari (Cons.). The record of the lower Court was also requisitioned and perused. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had remanded the case on 10‑3‑1984 with specific directions to the Consolidation Officer for giving 14K‑15M land to the petitioners as decreed by the Civil Court and for that purpose to prepare fresh scheme with regard to the parties keeping in view their entitlement and to submit the same for confirmation to the Collector (Cons.), Jhelum. The case was forwarded by the Collector (Cons.), District Jhelum on 27‑10‑1985 for fresh proposal to the Consolidation Officer. The Ahlmad of the Consolidation Officer, Jhelum vide his minute No.849 dated 27‑10‑1985 forwarded the case to :he Girdawar for fresh proposal. Obviously the last order suffers from jurisdictional weakness as the Ahlmad had no authority or power under the law to send the case to Girdawar for fresh proposal. Anyway the proposal was submitted to the Consolidation Officer, who without hearing the parties himself on 27‑2‑1986 forwarded it to the Collector (Cons.), who heard the parties and visited the spot on 18‑4‑1987 and passed the order deciding the case with amendments on 13‑5‑1987 at Jhelum. This order mentions that the appellant (Saad) had reached a compromise with Ghulam Ali respondent. However, the appellant had denied this agreement before the ADC/Collector (Cons.) but on persuasion by respectables had again arrived at a compromise as maintained in the Collector (Cons.)'s order. However, neither the statement of Saad (present petitioner) was recorded nor that of the `respectables' persuading the parties to arrive at a compromise. Ghulam Ali respondent had no entitlement at all in Sq. No.19 on the road and seems to have unduly been benefited by the Consolidation staff. The so‑called compromise between the parties before the Girdawar (Cons.) is void because of lack of jurisdiction. The compromise before the Collector also suffers from weakness as the Collector should have recorded the statements of the parties and the witnesses at that time. It is not conceivable why should the petitioner cede his valuable property on the road' side in favour of Ghulam Ali respondent who had no entitlement whatsoever there.

8. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) is based on two reasons:‑‑‑ (a) compromise between the parties; and (b) petitioners' entitlement in Sq. No.19 adjacent to Jhelum‑Pind Dadan. Khan road. I am afraid neither the petitioners were given their full and correct entitlement in Sq. No.19 as can be seen in the following paragraph nor the Collector (Cons.)'s order was based on any valid compromise as has been explained above.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners were not allocated their previous land adjacent to the road as well as in Squares Nos.38, 50 and 51 therefore the Collector (Cons.) framed amendments for the redressal of the grievances of the petitioners but he did not restore the entire land previously held by the petitioners adjacent to the road. Moreover, some land in Squares Nos.75 and 47 which was not previously held by the petitioners was not excluded entirely. There were some residential structures of the petitioners in Khasra No.19/2/1 but neither during the consolidation operations nor in the amendments the same land was given to the petitioners. Muhammad Ayub respondent (Scheme No.246/83) held his previous land comprising of Kishtawari Khasra No.1527 which was a path. During the consolidation operations he was allocated Khasra No.19/1/1 measuring 1K‑5M previously held by the petitioners. Ghulam Muhammad (Scheme No.64) held no land in rectangle No.8. He was allocated Khasra No.8/23/2 measuring 1K‑7M to accommodate him in lieu of his Shamlat's share whereas he should have been given Khasra No.8/23/3. Khasra No.50/20 measuring 4K‑9M was excluded from Mubarak etc. of Scheme No.240 and given to the petitioners as it was previously held by them. No doubt, Mubarak etc. held their previous land in Sq. No.50 and during the consolidation operations Khasras Nos.50/9 and 50/12 were not given to Mubarak etc., but they did not file any appeal. So far as Ghulam Ali is concerned he had no land on the road previously but he was allocated Khasras Nos.8/21/2 and 19/1/2 measuring 1K‑11M during the consolidation operations without any justification. Gheeba of Scheme No.330 was given Chahi land in place of his land situated in the river. Khasra No.38/9/2 measuring 1K‑7M was excluded from Syed Anees Haider etc. of Scheme No.246/20 and they were given Khasra No.38/9/1‑min north just keeping in view the principle of consolidation operations.

10. Under these circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The order of the Collector (Cons.) dated 13‑5‑1987 is also modified as follows in view of the entitlement of the parties at various places:‑‑‑ Scheme No. Name of right‑ holder Area excluded Area included

671. Saad son of Kaisu, petitioner Kh.No.19/2/2‑min north OK‑5M h.No.19/2/1‑min east OK‑5M K 246/59. Sultan Ahmad son of Wali Muhammad Respondent. Kh.No.19/2/1‑min East OK‑5M Kh.No.19/2/2‑min north OK‑5M 246/43. Mst. Asu widow etc. petitioners Kh.No.47/21/2 OK‑18M 48/24/2 3K‑7M 48/25 ‑8K‑18M38 75/5/1 ‑4K‑13M 17K‑16M Khs.No. 8/21/2/ OK‑4M 19/1/26 1K‑7M 38/23/3 3K‑11M 50/20‑min east ‑4K‑9M 51/3/1 min 4K‑5M min east 4K‑OM east 51/8/2‑3 (min‑east‑4K‑OM 17K‑16M

672. Mst. Asu etc Kh.No.8/23/31 K‑1M Kh.No.19/1/1 1K‑5M petitioners Kh.No.38/9/1 Min north 1K‑7M 2K‑8M Kh.No.38/9/2 1K‑7M 2K‑12M 146/83 Muhammad Ayub, respondent Kh. No. 19/1/1 ‑ 1K‑5M Kh. No. 8/23/21K‑7M

64. Ghulam Muhammad etc. respondents Kh. No. 8/23/2 ‑1K‑7M Kh. No. 8/23/3 1K‑1M

240. Mubarak etc. sons of Godar respondent Kh. No. 50/20‑min east ‑4K‑9M 4K‑9M Kh. No. 48/24/2 3K‑7M 48/25‑min west 1K‑2M 4K‑9M

660. Ghulam Ali son of Bahawal Bakhsh Khs. No. 8/21/2/ OK‑4M 19/1/2 1K‑7M 1K‑11M Khs. No. 47/21/2 OK‑18M 75/5/1/min south OK‑13M 1K‑11M

330. Gheeba son of Khs. No. Mehra respondent Khs. No. 38/23/3 3K‑11M 51/3/1‑min east 4K‑5M 51 /8/2‑3‑min east 4K‑OM 11 K‑16M Khs. No. 48/25/min east 7K‑16M 75/5/1 min north 4K‑ M 11 K‑16M 246/20. Syed Anees Haider etc. respondents Kh. No 38/9/2 1K‑7M Kh. No. 38/9/1 min north 1K‑7M

11. The judgment was reserved; therefore, the parties shall be informed accordingly. A.A./447/R Order accordingly,