P L D 1964 W (PLP)

M. Z. Khan for Petitioners. Raja Abdur Razaq for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 8th of February 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). Multan whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents. The facts of the case are that the Additional Deputy Com missioner (Consolidation) confirmed 94 kanals and 8 marlas of land to Muhammad Sharif and Shahab Din respondents in two blocks. The main block consisted to their property area and they were given 24 kanals in square No. 55 on account of their mortgagee rights. The respondents, however, went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who accepted it and directed that 24 kanals of land from square No. 55 be brought to square No. 6 and treated it as proprietary. Umar Din petitioner was given 24 kanals in square No. 55 instead although he did not own any area on account of mortgagee rights. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is established that the respondents' father was confirmed area in lieu of 783 units. Out of these, 643 units were proprietary and 140 were on account of mortgagee rights. The A. C. O., made a proposal on 28‑7‑1961 where under the respondents were given land in two blocks in lieu of proprietary and mortgagee area. The Additional Deputy Commis sioner (Consolidation) passed orders of confirmation because persons other than the respondents had objected. So far as the respondents were concerned, they thumb‑marked the proposed entries made by the A. C. O. and raised no objection before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). Subsequently, they became entitled to more produce index units as the units for certain classes of land which the respondents' father owned in India were enhanced. The correction of units was made on 4-8‑1961. The respondents went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), and desired that because they were entitled to a larger number of units, they should be given one block instead of two and the entire area should be treated as proprietary. The learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) accepted their plea. While doing so, it was not realized that no land had been given to them in lien of increased units, and as such, the considerations of additional units in consolidation proceedings were not relevant. In such proceedings, area already held by landowners is consolidated No area in lieu of additional units is to be given because, if the principle was accepted, dislocation is likely to be caused to persons who have already been confirmed land on the basis of entitlement. While considering whether Muhammad Sharif and Shahab Din's rights have been injured or not, one has to see whether, on the basis of the area actually allotted to them, any injustice has been done. When this criterion is applied, the conclusion is obvious that they have to get two blocks, on comprising of proprietary area and the other consisting of the area which they would get on account of their mortgagee rights. In these circumstances, there was no justification for any interference with the orders passed by the Additional Com missioner (Consolidation) specially when the respondent had themselves thumb‑marked the entries in Register Taqsim as well as confirmation orders. I, therefore, accept the revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and direct that the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) shall be implemented. S. Q. Petition accepted.