1989 PLP 2483 (CLC)

Iftikhar Hussain Khcra for Petitioner. Ch. Maqbool Ahmad for Respondent. This revision petition has been riled under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 13‑4‑1987, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Ali Sher, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar, was confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation officer vide his order dated 25‑3‑1982. The petitioner being dissatisfied, filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Collector (C) who vide his order dated 23‑11 1982 rejected the same on the grounds that the petitioner was allocated land during the consolidation operations according to his previous entitlement. His appeal was also time‑barred. The petitioner further preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Commissioner (C) who vide his impugned order rejected the same holding that no injustice was done to the petitioner. Hence this Revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that pre‑consolidation the petitioner had his entire holding in 2 units. After consolidation his holding has been split into 11 units comprising of awkward blocks. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is against the spirit of Consolidation Law. In this regard reliance was placed on PLD 1987 SC 16.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents rebutting the contention of the counsel for the petitioner stated that the revision petition had been filed with a mala fide intention and was also time‑barred. The petitioner was present at the time of the confirmation of the scheme. He raised no objection to the scheme at that time. Therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to start finding holes in the scheme. The petitioner has not mentioned any specific Khasra numbers taken away from him or added to his holding. The learned counsel for the respondents went on to argue that this Court was not meant to investigate into the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioner impleaded 5 respondents before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons). The number was unilaterally raised to 14 before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and again to 79 before this Court. The petitioner is barred by law by resorting to this procedural irregularity. The learned counsel added that the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner could be. distinguished from the facts of this case. The learned counsel further stated that the plea taken by the petitioner that his holding was split from 2 to 11 units, was never taken before the lower Courts. The question arises as to why he did so. However, in the presence of the two concurrent decisions against the petitioner, he is entitled to no relief by the present Court.

5. Using the right of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner said that all the respondents were necessary parties to the case. As for the procedural requirement, placing his reliance on PLD 1967 Karachi 711, the learned counsel for the petitioner went on to argue that the number could be increased at any stage of the appeal or the revision. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner quoted PLD 1985 SC 208, in support of his contention. He said that the said authority is of exhaustive nature and covers all aspects of the case. Prior to this ruling, all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents had been used. Since the advent of this ruling, however, a stop, has been placed on the procedural irregularities, and his petition be accepted.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner had his possession pre- consolidation at two places, out of his entire entitlement. These two plots were restored to him during the consolidation operation and the remaining entitlement was allocated to him in scattered pieces of land without keeping in view the I difficulties of a cultivator. No doubt, the petitioner had no other possession but it did not mean that he had no other land in the village. He should have been accommodated adjacant to his possessed land. The learned counsel for the respondents raised certain objections on the legality of the case but I do not rely on technicalities. Fundamental principle of Consolidation is to consolidate the land and not to allocate the land in such pieces which could not be easily cultivated.

7. Taking into consideration the above facts I accept the appeal and remand the case to the learned Collector (C) with direction that the petitioner be accommodated in compact plots, after impleading necessary parties only for the purpose of disposing of this revision, and affording due opportunity to be heard to the parties. The judgment of the case was reserved, therefore, parties to be informed accordingly. MA.K./323/R Case remanded.