2004 PLP 1644 (CLC)

(i) Mst. Gaimo widow of Murad who was co-sharer in Scheme No.80 was riot impleaded as a party. (ii) That the land of the then respondents (Noor Muhammad etc.) was not allotted to the petitioners. (iii) That it was hopelessly time-barred for which no plausible explanation was offered. Aggrieved by the said order, Ahmad Bakhsh, etc. present respondents went in revision petition and also impleaded Mst. Gaimo widow of Murad as a pro forma respondent. The revision petition was accepted on the main ground that as per Register Haqdaran Zamin pertaining to the year, 1988-89, the suit land falling in Khata No.2 was owned and possess by Ahmad Bakhsh etc.

5. Parties present. They have submitted written arguments and also made verbal averments. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be summarized as follows:-- (a) That the original appeal was time-barred by 1 year and 13 days. (b) Mst. Gaimo widow of Murad was not made a party in the Court of Collector (Cons.), which was a technical flaw. (c) That their lands have been further split up instead of consolidation which is against the spirit of consolidation. (d) That the suit land comprising Khasra No.29/4-5 was previously owned and possessed by them. (e) that Wanda Jaat were prepared with the consent of the parties and Ahmad Bakhsh respondent thumb-marked the Scheme No.80 in token of its acceptance.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that they inherited the suit land and the petitioners were not even co-sharers that to talk of their being owner in possession. It was also contended that they are in possession of the suit land. It was also submitted that inadvertantly, Mst. Gaimo was not made a party. However, it was a minor irregularity which was rectified by impleading her in the Court of A.C. (Cons.) Finally, it has been averred that the Revenue Record corroborates their contention and the impugned order is based on that.

7. I have very carefully heard the arguments, perused the Revenue Record and the orders of the lower Courts. It is revealed from the record that the Collector (Cons.) misread the record and only laid stress oil minor technicalities whereas the A.C. (Cons.) has thoroughly examined the record and based the impugned order on the Revenue Record produced by the staff. It is also revealed from the record that the respondents were in possession of the disputed land and vital rights of the parties cannot be taken away on mere technicalities. Both the learned lower Courts have not passed specific orders on the issue of delay. The delay is condoned in view of the fact that the limitation runs from the date of knowledge.

8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I find no grounds for) interference. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. File be consigned to the record room. H.B.T./5/Rev. Revision dismissed.