P L D 1983 Lahore 591 (PLP)

This Writ Petition is directed against the orders of the Consolidation Authorities on two-fold grounds, firstly, that Muhammad Amin son of the petitioner was not specifically authorised to represent his father during the course of consolidation proceedings, and secondly, that in. pursuance to an order passed by an Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), the petitioner has not been properly compensated.

2. At today's bearing, the Consolidation Officer, Sheikhupura Mr. Muhammad Yunas Birlas is present together with the Halqa Patwari Mr. Muhammad Ismail and the entire consolidation record. I have perused the record and so had the learned counsel for the petitioner the advantage of consulting the same.

3. In so far as the first ground is concerned, it is a serious grievance that the petitioner's son Muhammad Amin had unauthorisedly represented his father and that worked to the prejudice of the petitioner, but on scrutiny it is found to lack factual basis and rather the proceedings of consolidation show that throughout Muhammad Amin had been appearing on behalf of his father and signing the resolutions. So much so that when the Consolidation Scheme was confirmed on 30-3-1962 whereby the petitioner was the main beneficiary by getting an area measuring 121 Kanals 1 Maria of Mst. Khudija Begum, it was the same very Muhammad Amin who had consented to the consolidation and signed the scheme. The petitioner had accepted that and felt satisfied by not agitating any grievance. It was Msr. Khudija Begum who went up to the High Court in writ jurisdiction complaining that the area in question was surrendered area being covered by the provisions of M. L. R. 89/91, and that she had been illegally denied her entitlement by the authorities. This writ petition was accepted by the High Court. She was held entitled to acquire that area and the case was sent back. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court in writ petition as no relief was claimed against him and the entitlement of a claimant under the Displaced Persons Laws was no concern of the petitioner on the basis of consolidation operation in the village. The petitioner had no locus standi in the matter and thus did not challenge that order any further. At any rate it attained finality.

4. According to the position obtaining on the record as supplied by the Consolidation Officer, it has further been shown that the son of the petitioner had even later throughout the consolidation proceedings in remand acted on behalf of his father as is evidenced by Resolution No. 159, dated 22-4-1971, Resolution No. 178, dated 27-4-1971 and a statement which Muhammad Amin gave before the A. C. O. on 27-4-1971 and the Resolution No. 149 dated 20-4-1971 through which the petitioner obtained 634 Kanals which was inclusive of compensatory area of 33 Kanals 15 Marlas of Class I soil. This final settlement was also consented to and signed by Muhammad Amin. The conclusion thus is irresistible that the plea being raised regarding the competence or authority of Muhammad Amin lacks factual basis and otherwise does not inspire confidence. The petitioner has never appeared in any of the consolidation proceedings but was content by asking his son to represent him. He cannot, therefore, be permitted in the course of constitutional jurisdiction to take advantage of his own conduct at a stage when it suits his by disowning the representations by his son made on his behalf. I have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling this contention.

5. Now, I will deal with the second contention that the petitioner has not been adequately compensated. The record shows and it is also the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in so far as his actual entitlement to obtain land under the Consolidation Scheme is concerned, that is not in dispute. The controversy is only confined to the compensation to be given to the petitioner by virtue of the fact that he was given the Khata of Mst. Kbudija Begum measuring 121 Kanals 1 Maria in the year 1962 but the same was lost by him on account of the fact that the High Court had recognized the right of Mst. Khudija Begum and that the Consolidation Scheme was ultimately set aside by the A. D. C. (C), Sheikhupura. I really wonder if a person is entitled to a compensation on account of a wrongful act of functionaries or illegal denial of a right of a land-owner. Be that as it may, there was observation made in favour of the petitioner by a learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore Division which does not appear to have been assailed any further. In the light of this observation made by the Additional Commissioner, the Consolidation Staff has conferred a factual benefit of 33 Kanals 15 Marlas Class-I soil though the area given is much larger by converting into other classifications. For clarity, it may be mentioned that the total entitlement of the petitioner was for 443 Kanals 2 Marlas of Class-I soil after this area of 35 Kanals 15 Marlas on account of compensation is added to his original entitlement. The petitioner has actually been given an area of 634 Kanals which comprises of 266 Kanals 8 Marlas Class-I soil, 127 Kanals 7 Marlas Class-II, 56 Kanals 10 Marlas Class-111 and 183 Kanals 15 Marlas Class-IV soil. Therefore, I am unable to appreciate the real grievance of the petitioner on this score. The figures speak out. for themselves.

6. Moreover, the same question can be answered in another form and that is that the petitioner having consented and compromised to obtain the increased area which has been given to him as compensation cannot now turn around and claim more or make a legal grievance on that score. I have already dealt with this aspect of the matter earlier in the judgment whereby it has been found that the petitioner's son Muhammad Amin was duly representing his father and carried his consent notwithstanding that there was no formal power of attorney executed in his favour. This is vide resolution No. 159, dated 22-4-1971. The respondent Mst. Khudija Begum, despite having lost the area, has adhered to that compromise and resolution. It illbehaves the petitioner to try to wriggle out of the same commitment on a pretext which has been found to be false.

7. I entertain no doubt in my mind that the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court is a relevant circumstance to be considered. If the pleas raised by the petitioner on factual aspects are found to amount to misrepresentation or suppression of facts, then that would disentitle him to the discretionary relief. The petitioner being a party to the compromise in the consolidation proceedings cannot now be permitted to agitate grievances F before the High Court contradictory to. his own conduct. I am, therefore firmly of the view that this is pot a fit case in which I should exercise in discretionary jurisdiction to come to the aid of the petitioner to help fulfills his greed for more area when he appears to have been sufficiently compensated as per his desire and agreement. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. M. A. K.????????? Petition dismissed.