1993 PLP 267 (MLD)

Malik Abdus Sattar Chughrai for Respondents Nos.3 to

7. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989. This order will dispose of W.P. No.3326 of 1984 and W.P. No.3778 of 1984, as these challenges the same impugned orders.

2. The Consolidation Scheme of village Jandanwala, Tehsil Kalur Kot, District Bhakkar was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 31‑12‑1981. Chiragh, son, Mst. Jatti, widow and Mst. Wasson, daughter of Hamand filed an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) on 3‑2‑1983 for partition of the Khata jointly held by them alongwith other heirs of Hamand. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the then appellants contended that their Khata has been kept joint alongwith the then respondents even though before the consolidation under family settlement, it was separated and portions separately possessed; partition should be made accordingly. The then respondents included amongst whom are the petitioners in the first petition bearing W.P. No‑3326 of 1984 stated that if partition is to take place according to the family partition and possession on the spot, they would have no objection. After recording this the appellate authority noted that the parties have proposed various alternate schemes for partition and lastly, they have agreed on one. An order was passed accordingly, by which the Khata was partitioned proportioning specified numbers in favour of the petitioners in the first petition and in favour of the others .jointly in two lots. This is vide order dated 2‑3 1983. The petitioners in the first petition filed an appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) made various adjustments in the Khata of the parties vide order dated 19‑6‑1983. The petitioners in both the petitions filed revision petitions and the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue passed the following operative order:‑‑ "After having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusing the relevant record I am of the view that as the order of the Collector (Cons.) dated 2‑3‑1383, apportioning the joint Khata, was made on the basis of a compromise reached between the parties, therefore, it could not be competently called in question in a subsequent appeal or revision. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was not justified to interfere in the matter and make further amendments in the Khatas vide his impugned order dated 19‑6‑1983. Consequently both the impugned orders, dated 19‑6‑1983 are set aside and the order of the Collector (Cons.) dated 2‑3‑1983 is restored as between the parties." This vide order dated 3‑6‑1984. Hence these Constitutional Petitions Learned counsel for the petitioners in the first petition filed by Malloo etc. has vehemently contended as per instructions issued by the Board of Revenue `(i) a joint Khata should not ordinarily be partitioned except when all the shareholders give their consent in writing and partitioning of the Khata is necessary for the purposes of consolidation; (ii) a joint Khata may be partitioned for minors and widows where their interests cannot be safeguarded otherwise.' It was contended that there was no consent in writing for the partition of Khata. Therefore, the Khata could not be partitioned. It is secondly contended that the Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue erred in holding that the order of the Collector (Cots.), dated 2‑3‑1983 was a consent order because the consent was conditional to the effect that the partition shall be made in accordance with the family partition and possession on the spot and that has not been kept in view. It is next contended that the ladies and the family of Hamand have not been given a separate share in the consolidation proceedings. Therefore, the orders being illegal are liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on P L D 1987 SC 45.

3. A perusal of the order of the Collector (Cons.) quoted above and in itself (Annexure B') quite clearly shows that various proposals were discussed by the parties and finally they agreed on one. The order was according passed. The learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue was quite right that when an order is jointly proposed to be passed and is accordingly passed by an authority, neither party is entitled to turn round and challenge it. The contentions are without merits. In view of the above, there is no justification to interfere in the consolidation proceeding concluded by competent authorities of exclusive jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AA./H‑51/L Petition dismissed: