P L D 1964 W (PLP)

M. Asad for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 22nd of December 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, whereby he rejected the second appeal filed by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner got land of his choice from the. A.C.O. on the 17th of September 1961. Subse quently, he and other right‑holders filed an appeal before the A.D.C. (Consolidation), Gujranwala. The A.D.C. (Consolidation), dis covered that 778 kanals and 6 marlas of trust land owned by Gurdawara Bhai Kishen Singh which was a trust property under the Central Government had been wrongly included in the consoli dation operations, without the prior permission of the competent authority. It was felt that the interest of the Gurdawara had been adversely affected and he, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the A.C.O. It was directed that the consolidation of this village should be taken up afresh. Against these orders, the petitioner filed a second appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Conolidation), but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. It is established that the Gurdawara land was included in the consolidation operations without the concurrence of the competent authority. No attempt was made by the Consolidation Officer to even consult the representative of the trust property. This is an illegality which vitiated the proceeding conducted by the A.C.O. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the A.D.C. (Consolidation) took action on instructions issued on 29‑3‑1962 while the scheme was sanctioned on 16‑9‑1961. His contention is that these instructions are not applicable to the scheme sanctioned prior to the issue thereof. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention because when instructions were issued, it was laid down that the cases already decided should be recon sidered with a view to finding out if the interest of the trust had suffered. If it was established that the interest of the trust had suffered, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consoli dation), was to recommend action for setting the things right. In this case, he has accepted the appeal, and the learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that this is an illegal order. It is not necessary to go into the merits of this objection because the petitioner himself filed an appeal against this order and a subsequent order was passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) was also not legal in the sense that the parties concerned were not pro perly heard. I am afraid. I cannot accept this contention, because the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) arranged proclamation by beat of drum under which it was stated that all these persons who wished to be heard by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) should appear before him on a particular date. It was after this proclamation and after hearing such persons as appeared before him that the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) passed order. I, therefore, see no illegality from this point of view. The learned counsel for the petitioner also suggested that, at this late stage, consolidation should not be taken afresh, buy action should be taken under section 12 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. I am afraid, section 12 is not applicable to such cases. Moreover, mere payment of compensation will not set the illegality right which was committed by the A.C.O. In order to remove all doubts, I have exercised my revision powers and have considered the order passed by the A.C.O. Those orders were illegal and a material irregularity had been committed. I, therefore, reject the request made in the revision petition for setting aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and direct that the consolidation of this village should be taken up afresh. The trust pro pert will be excluded altogether while taking up the consolidation operations afresh. Attempts should be however made that the minimum amount of dislocation is caused in the new opera tion. S. Q. Petition rejected.