1992 PLP 611 (CLC)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of Village Mehmood Mahtan, Tehsil Ahmedpur Sharqia, District Bahawalpur was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by the Consolidation Officer on 28‑9‑1985. Ahmed Bakhsh, feeling aggrieved filed an appeal in the Court of Collector (Cons.) with a delay of 1 month 11 days which was rejected vide order dated 22‑6‑1988. Ahmed Bakhsh assailed this order in revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who vide his impugned order accepted it holding that there was no deficiency in the entitlement of Ahmed Bakhsh. However, he restored Khasra Nos.404/11, 19/19, 20, 22 and 404/12/3 measuring 22K‑8M to Ahmed Bakhsh after taking away from the Wanda of Muhammad Yousaf on the basis of previous possession leading to these revision petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R. No.271 of 1988 and respondents in R.O.R. No.277 of 1988 contended that the consolidation schemes of the respective parties were confirmed with their consent and appeals were duly dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation)/Collector vide order dated 22‑6‑1986. However, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) amended the schemes of the parties vide his impugned order by advancing the date of hearing from 4‑i1‑1987 to 22‑10‑1987 during the subsistence of stay order dated 21‑10‑1987 by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. As a result of amendments framed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) the petitioner Muhammad yousaf was given inferior land not previously held by him. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was due to retire on 24‑10‑1987 and made the impugned order with undue haste was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for Ahmad Bakhsh in R.O.R. No.277 of 1988 and respondents in R.O.R. No.271 of 1988 in his written arguments contended that the consolidation of this revenue estate was confirmed without hearing Ahmad Bakhsh and the Register Scheme was neither signed nor thumb‑marked by him. Another person with the same name was a member of the Advisory Committee but the present Ahmed Bakhsh was not associated with consolidation proceedings. Muhammad Yousaf, who was not a co‑sharer in the Khata and did not have possession on any field number, was given Ahmad Bakhsh petitioner's owned and possessed area. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Collector only on the point of limitation and not on merits. However, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) accepted the revision petition and some area was returned to the petitioner, but still Khasras Nos.404/12/5(8K), 404/12/10 (6K), 404/16/9(2K), 384/15/18‑min (2K‑12M); 404/16/10 (4K) were with Muhammad Yousuf. Ahmed Bakhsh's house was situated in Khasra No.604/16/9(2K) and there was an orchard in Khasra No.404/12/5(8K). It was prayed that Ahmad Bakhsh's revision petition may be accepted and Muhammad Yousaf's revision petition may be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the record of the Patwari (Cons.) and the pre‑and post‑consolidation sketch map. Ahmad Bakhsh is one of the co‑sharers of Scheme No.263 but the impugned amendment had been framed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) only to the extent of his share which is not correct because the amendment should be made in respect of the entire scheme. The number of parties' plots also seems to have been gone up at every stage as follows:‑‑ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? No. of Plots Scheme??????????? Name of?????????????????????? Pre Cons. ??????? Post Cons. ????? After No.????????????????? rightholder??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? amendment 239????? Muhammad Yousaf etc.??????????? 7????????????????????? 13??????????????????? 15 263????? Ahmad Bakhsh etc.????????????????? 15??????????????????? 25??????????????????? 31 This increase in the number and scatter of the plots is not in accordance with the principles of consolidation and does not meet the objectives of the consolidation law. The circumstances alleged by the learned counsel for Ahmad Bakhsh in which the impugned order was made also cast aspersions, substantiated by the record, on the officer and make the impugned order open to doubt. Under these circumstances the revision petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) for fresh decision after hearing the parties in accordance with law and the instructions.

6. The orders in these cases were reserved for checking the entitlement of the parties and for want of written arguments on behalf of Ahmad Bakhsh and shall now be communicated to them. AA./408/R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.