1990 PLP 1972 (CLC)
Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI and 66 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM GHAUS‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1972 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Saeed-ul-Hassan, Member (Consolidation) |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI and 66 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM GHAUS‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1972 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1972 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Saeed-ul-Hassan, Member (Consolidation).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1972 (CLC) (Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI and 66 others — Petitioners Versus GHULAM GHAUS‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Hamccd Asghar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Additional Commissioners' finding based on time‑barred appeal challenged in revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Specific khasra number was allotted to respondent in Consolidation Scheme but in `Mussavi' and "khatauni Pamaish" same was shown in the name of residents of `Deh'‑‑‑Respondent's contention before Additional Commissioner was that such discrepancy in consolidation record was not due to his fault and if wrong entry was allowed to remain as such be would suffer deficiency of land‑‑‑Respondents' claim was supported by the residents of Deh and Patwari who were present‑‑ Residents of Deh and Patwari also requested Additional Commissioner for necessary correction in record‑‑‑There being apparent mistake in Revenue Record, Additional Commissioner was justified in condoning delay‑‑‑Additional Commissioner rightly gave preference to entries in register of Consolidation Scheme which proved beyond any doubt that such land had been given to respondent‑‑‑Additional Commissioner was thus justified in ordering correction in relevant consolidation record‑‑‑Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Tufail for the Petitioners.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Tufail for the Petitioners. Sh. Hamccd Asghar for Respondent. This is a revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1900 against the order dated 28‑11‑1983 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Lahore Division.
2. It has been stated in the revision petition that the consolidation scheme of village Jhangrawan, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot was confirmed on 29‑11‑1968 and there was no justification for the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to entertain a time‑barred appeal of 15 years. That the plea of the respondent that he was allotted Khasra No. 502 during consolidation operations is erroneous and that the fording of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) is not based on fact. 3. 1 have heard both the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. The facts of the case are that Khasra No. 502 was allotted to Ghulam Ghaus respondent in the Consolidation Scheme but in the Mussavi and Khatauni Pamaish this khasra number was shown in the name of the residents of village Jhangarwan. The respondent pleaded before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) that this discrepancy in the consolidation record was not due to his fault and if the wrong entries are allowed to remain as such he would suffer a deficiency of 8 kanals of land. The residents of village Jhangarwan and the patwari, who were present before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) did not oppose the claim of the respondent but on the other hand supported his contention and requested for necessary correction in the record. As there was an apparent mistake in the Revenue Record, therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was justified in condoning the delay. It was clear from the perusal of record that Khasra No.502 was allotted to the respondent and was confirmed in his name by the order of the Consolidation Officer as written in column No. 10 of the Register of Consolidation Scheme with regard to Scheme No. 4 of the respondent. This Khasra No. 502 was corresponding to old Khasras Nos. 492 and 493 which were subsequently changed to Khasra No. 587 in the A Bandobast. The respondent had all along continued to be the owner and in possession of this khasra number according to the entries in the Revenue Record. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) rightly gave preference to the entries in the register of Consolidation Scheme which proved beyond any doubt that thisl, land had been given to the respondent. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was, therefore, justified in ordering the correction in the relevant consolidation record.
5. In view of the above, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. A .A./353/R Revision dismisses