1988 PLP 2441 (CLC)

Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Respondents Nos.l to

5. Ex parte Respondent No.6. Date of hearing: 7th June, 1988. This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 23‑11‑1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Consolidation Scheme of the village was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 31‑12‑1983. The respondents 1 to 5 filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), who accepted it on 26‑5‑1986. That order was challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), but failed. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that old Khasra No.6216 (new 3201) comprised two parts measuring 40 Kanals and 65K‑7M. One part comprising Khasra No.5791/ 3201/1 (40K) was purchased by the petitioners vide mutation No.6245 dated 23‑8‑1963. Since then the petitioners are in possession of that land. In Consolidation operations that area was adjusted in the Khata of the petitioners according to their entitlement, while the other part was owned and possessed by Imam Din respondent No.6. After Consolidation the parties were put in possession against their respective Wandas with their consent. The respondents also put their signatures or: the register scheme in token of acceptance of their Wanda even then they filed a time‑barred appeal before the Collector (Cons.), who without any justification condoned that delay and took away 4o Kanals of land from the Khata of the petitioners and adjusted in the Wanda of the respondents 1 to

5. In lieu thereof the land of the respondents 1 to 5 was allotted to Imam Din respondent No.6 and his land was allotted to the petitioner on the ground that Khasra No.6216 (3201) belonged to Imam Din. That observation of the Collector was incorrect as Khasra No.3201/never belonged to Imam Din. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) without examining the record has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on the score of between plot bandi. He has stated that since the petitioners admittedly owned and possessed Khasra No.3201/1 (40K), therefore, there was no need in carving out any Tattima as alleged by the Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel has further contended that the orders of the Courts below are against the factual position, therefore, are bad in law and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.l to 5 has argued that the disputed land was purchased jointly by the petitioners and Imam Din respondent No.6. The disputed piece of land measuring 40 Kanals was owned and possessed by Imam Din and the contention of the petitioners having owned and possessed that specific piece of land is not correct. That land was adjacent to the plot of the respondents Nos.l to 5, therefore, it was rightly adjusted to them which is in accordance with the spirit of consolidation law. He has further contended that the delay in filing appeal was rightly condoned by the Collector (Cons.). The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioners after considering these aspects of the case, therefore, point of limitation cannot be agitated at revisional stage.

5. I have carefully considered these arguments and have examined the record. I have also perused the sketch map prepared by the Patwari (Cons.). An examination of Register Haqdaran Zameen 1979‑80 shows that disputed Khasra No.5791/3201 measuring 40 Kanals stands in the name of the petitioners at Khewat No.674. It appears that the Collector (Cons.), while making adjustments did not see the relevant record otherwise he would have not stated that the disputed number did not belong to the petitioners. The perusal of the record further reveals that respondent No.l, who is an educated person had signed the register scheme in token of acceptance of their Wanda yet he alongwith his other co‑sharers filed 25 years time‑barred appeal. It was unfair on the part of the Collector (Cons.) to condone that inordinate delay without assigning any cogent reasons. The amendments in the scheme were, therefore, unwarranted by law. The contention of the petitioners that effecting of changes in this manner was improper, has a lot of force. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.), without adverting to these aspects of the case, has dismissed the appeal. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in accepting the revision petition. Consequently, I allow the revision petition, set aside the orders of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and Collector (Cons.) dated 23‑11‑1986 and 26‑5‑1986 respectively and restore the original consolidation scheme between the parties. A . A . / 283/R Revision accepted.