1988 PLP 2428 (CLC)

‑‑Ss. 10 & 13‑‑Appeal against confirmation of Consolidation Scheme dismissed by Collector as time‑barred‑‑Additional Commissioner in appeal condoned delay and remanded case to Collector for making adjustments in Consolidation Scheme according to parties' entitlement‑ Petitioners' failure to file revision against remand order rendered that order to attain finality and thus conferred a right in favour of respondents‑‑Impugned order of Board of Revenue wherein aspect of finality of remand order was not considered was recalled especially where petitioners had generally been adjusted as per their due entitlement. Syed Altaf Hussain Shah for Petitioners. Ismail Chaudhary for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Respondent No.3 in person. This case has been remanded by the Lahore High Court vide order, dated 2‑5‑1988.

2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that after the confirmation of the consolidation scheme, possessions were changed. Thereafter one of the co‑sharers of respondents namely Mst. Ghulam Sakina gifted some land in favour of Nazir Ahmed respondent No.3 through Nawazish Ali son of Muhammad Farid respondent No.2 on 23‑2‑1982, therefore, the contention of the respondents having no knowledge about confirmation of scheme is unwarranted by law. It is a well‑settled law that signatures of a co‑sharer or near relative on the Register Scheme is enough. Reliance in this connection is placed on P L D 1964 (W.P.) Rev

106. Hence the respondents were aware of confirmation of scheme. On that point the appeal of the respondents was correctly dismissed by the Collector on 12‑1‑1985. But the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) without any lawful authority condoned inordinate delay and remanded the case to the Collector who unnecessarily made changes in the Khata of the parties, which were neither desirable nor equitable. As such learned Member (Consolidation) keeping in view this aspect of the case has rightly accepted the petition of the petitioners which calls for no interference.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 2‑7‑1985 remanding the case to the Collector (Cons.) after condoning the delay was not challenged by the petitioners, therefore, it attained finality but the learned Member (Consolidation) had wrongly thrown away that subsequent order of the Collector (Cons.), dated 25‑8‑1985, on the point of limitation which was not the real issue before him. That is why the Lahore High Court has set aside the said order of the Member (Consolidation) dated 3‑3‑1987.

4. I have considered these arguments and have examined the record. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) in his order, dated 2‑7‑1985 condoned the delay and has remanded the case for making adjustments in the Khata of the parties according to their entitlement. By this order a right was conferred upon the respondents and gave a cause of action to the petitioners in that case. The aggrieved party could file a revision against that order. Since they chose not to do so, that order attained finality. But my predecessor did not consider this important issue in the case. A perusal of the sketch map also shows that the petitioners have generally been adjusted as per their due entitlement. In view of the above I hereby re‑call the impugned order, dated 3‑3‑1987 of my predecessor and set it aside as being without any legal effect. Consequently the revision petition is dismissed. A . A . /273/R Revision dismissed.