P L D 1964 W (PLP)

This order will dispose of the following two revisions (1) Farid and others v. Basara and others (No. 783 of 1962‑63). (2) Farid and others v. Basara and others (No. 784 of 1962‑63). These two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 11th of August 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan, whereby he rejected the revision petitions filed by the petitioners. The facts of the case are that, on 27‑11‑1960, the petitioners were given land of their choice. Farid, one of the co‑sharers, gave his consent and thumb‑marked the khata. One Allu was also confirmed land by the A. C. O. on the same date. Basara respondent and Allu both filed counters appeals before the A. D. C. (Cons.) and they were accepted on 26‑6‑1961. During the implementation of these orders, the khata of Farid and Mst. Rajo was allowed to remain intact and the previous holding of Mst. Rajo and Farid in sq. No. 59 was joined with other holdings of the respondents and the co‑sharers. Four appeals were filed before the A. D. C. (Cons.) who came to the conclusion that the A. D. C. (Cons.)'s orders dated 26‑6‑1961 had not been properly implemented. He, therefore, accepted all the four appeals and made certain modifications. Mst. Rajo and Farid felt aggrieved and went in revision to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) but both their revisions were dismissed. Hence these two second revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed his reliance on the order passed by the A. C. O. on 27‑11‑1960 and the consent of the parties. That order was set aside by the A. D. C. (Cons.) on 26‑6‑1961 and, therefore, no reliance can be placed either on the consent of the parties or an the orders passed by the A. C. O. on 27‑11‑1960. The main question for determination is as to whether the orders of the A. D. C. (Cons.) passed on 26‑6‑1961 have been properly implemented. The A. C. O. implemented these orders in such a manner that the khata of Farid and Mst. Rajo was allowed to remain intact but the previous holdings of Farid and Mst. Rajo were given to the respondents and their co‑sharers. The learned counsel for the petitioners is of the view that, during consolidation, joint khatas and exclusion khatas have to be treated separately. I am afraid, I cannot accept this view, because when partitioning of joint khatas of the various co‑sharers is effected, the joint khatas as well as their exclusion khatas have to be pooled and, out of the pool, the various co‑sharers get their separate blocks according to the shares held by them. If this practice is not adopted, the automatic result will be that the co-sharers will get a block from their exclusion khatas and another block from the joint khatas. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid great stress on the grounds of appeal, filed by the parties before the A. D. C. (Cons.) and the orders passed by him on the 26th of June 1961. In the first place, it is not the ground of appeal that matters. The real thing is the order passed by the appellate authority. In the accounts (sic) I find that, in the case of Allu, even the grounds of appeal mentioned that Allu should be allowed to remain with other co‑sharers. The main object of the petitioners is that the khatas given to them by the A. C. O. on 27‑11‑1960 and 30‑9‑61 should remain intact. If this is allowed, then the co‑sharers of the joint khatas will get a portion which was originally held by Mst. Rajo and Farid. This will not be a proper implementation of the restora tion of the point khatas of the various co‑sharers. The learned A. D. C. (Cons.) was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the A. C. O. had not properly implemented the orders passed by the A. D. C. (Cons.) on 26‑6‑1961. The implementa tion effected by him is appropriate and that is why the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) did not interfere. I too see no justification for any interference. Both the revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. S. Q. Petitions dismissed.