1988 PLP 2447 (CLC)

C.A. Rehman for Applicant. Zahid Abbasi for Respondent No.l. Munawwar Cheema for Respondents Nos. 59 and 60 Respondents Nos. 5, 6, 24, 31, 48 and 55 in person. Nemo for rest of the Respondents. This is an application filed under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957, for reviewing the order dated 25‑3‑1987 passed by my predecessor in Revision Petition No. 2837 of 1985, entitled "Ijaz Ahmed etc. v. Ismail etc."

2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the Collector (Cons.) had clearly ignored the directions contained in the remand order of the Board of Revenue and the High Court and thereafter, clarification issued by the Board of Revenue dated 24‑11‑1982. There is no denying the fact that as per entries of Khasra Gardawari for Kharif 1973 and Rabi 1974 and Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1971‑72, the land in dispute was Banjar Qadeem. Such land had to be classified as Class IV. But the Collector in utter disregard to these facts had changed the classification of soil from Class IV to III which has caused undue deficiency of land in the khata of the applicant. The reasons which weighed with the Collector (Cons.) for such change were firstly, that land was situated along the Pucca road at a distance of 4/5 kilometres from Pindi Bhattian. Secondly, the land was situated on Eastern side of the Bund and as such it was considered more valuable than the land situated on Western side of the Bund. The. Collector looked at the proposition of the applicant from this angle without looking at the claims of others from the same angle. He has also stated that during this period of 14 years, the applicant had altogether changed the nature of the land by spending huge amount and it is not advisable to disturb the applicant at this belated stage.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the field staff in order to give undue benefits to some right‑holders including the applicant classified the disputed area as Class IV instead of Class III. As a result of that wrong classification the applicant succeeded in getting more land than his entitlement. That land was valuable being situated on Pindi Bhattian‑Hafizabad Road. The Collector with the consultation of the Advisory Committee and keeping in view the observations of the superior Courts had changed the classification of the disputed khasra numbers from Class IV to Class III for which he was competent and had full justification. That order was upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and the Member (Consolidation) as such there are concurrent findings against the applicant.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record of the case. The crux of the matter lies in whether the land falling on Eastern side of the Bund, situated on pacca road (Pindi Bhattian‑Hafizabad) has rightly been classified as Class III instead of Class IV by the Collector (Cons.) vide his order dated 29‑11‑1984 and whether, the clarifications contained in memo: dated 24‑11‑1982 were duly considered by the Collector or not. The perusal of the Collector's order shows that he has gone much deeper into the whole case and has thrashed out the entire case threadbare. He has given sound reasons for change in the classification of disputed land. Although as per Register Khasra Gardawari for the year 1973‑74, and Register Haqdaran Zameen 1971‑72, the nature of land was entered as "Banjar Qadeem" yet firstly being situated on Eastern side of the "Bund" it had the protection from floods. Secondly being situated along metalled road i.e. Pindi Bhattian‑Hafizabad Road and also being at a distance by only 4 killometres from Pindi Bhattian City, its market value was naturally much more than the land situated on the' Western side. I am therefore fully satisfied with the views expressed by the Collector (Cons.) in his order dated 29‑11‑1984 which were also confirmed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and by my learned predecessor. In view of the above discussion I see no substance in the review application which is accordingly dismissed. A.A./282/11 Application dismissed.