1992 PLP 649 (CLC)

This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 20‑2‑1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Multan Division whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village Rawani, Tehail Shujabad, District Multan was confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (ibid) by the Consolidation Officer on 29‑9‑1985. The respondents feeling aggrieved filed an appeal in the Court of Collector (Consolidation) who vide his order dated 31‑1‑1987 accepted it, holding that the land of graveyard adjusted in the Scheme ‑of the respondents should have been given to its original owners. The respondents were not the recipients of this land in any manner. The Consolidation Officer would make the adjustment accordingly. This order was assailed by the petitioners in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who vide his impugned order dismissed it. He has held in his order that it is an admitted fact that Malik Ahmed Bakhsh etc. respondents had preferred appeal before the Collector (Cons.) against the adjustment of the area of graveyard belonging to other land owner during Consolidation operations. This area should have been kept intact with them and none also could be allocated this land. This situation caused the deficiency in the area of the respondents. However it is evident from the perusal of the Collector's order that he has directed the Consolidation Officer to make adjustment of the land under graveyard. He has not touched upon any other matter at all. There was no mention in the Collector's order about the implementation whatsoever of mutation No.702. Hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Khewat No: 103 was owned by Malik Ahmed Bakhsh respondent solely whereas the petitioners were co‑sharers with Ahmad Bakhsh in Khewat No.14. There were 22 co?sharers in latter khewat. Ahmad Bakhsh had two Schemes Nos.869 and 870 and the present revision petition was relevant to Scheme No.870 in which Central Government was a party but Ahmad Bakhsh and Khurshid Bakhsh did not implead the Central Government as a party at any stage of the proceedings. The condonation of delay by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) Collector was given due to respondents' alleged lack of knowledge whereas the schemes had duly been signed by them, and hence ignorance could not be claimed. The original owners of graveyard were given land in six schemes in consolidation operations and if they were required to surrender land in six different places then it would be impracticable for the recipient to cultivate that; the land being in very small fragments.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that Scheme No.870 consisted of Khasras Nos.187/26 (9K‑17M), 332 (15K), 333 (2K‑9M). Ahmad Bakhsh was a co‑sharer in Khasra No.187 (graveyard) to the extent of 7K‑19M while the other two Khasras number consisted of Abadi. The Central Government was a co‑sharer in these Khasras numbers to the extent of 5K‑2M. The respondents were not co‑sharers in these Khasras numbers pre?consolidation and, therefore, appealed to the Collector (Consolidation) which was accepted. The Collector (Consolidation)'s order was for adjustment and for giving the graveyard to its pre‑consolidation owners. Similarly the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) had passed a speaking order. The respondents were prepared to accept the land in pieces from six schemes if the graveyards were to be restored to its original owners.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, exercising his right of reply, stated that this adjustment would not be in accordance with the principles of consolidation.

6. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record. as well as the sketch map produced by the Patwari. The respondents were affected by allocation of graveyard in their Wanda which was not held by them pre?consolidation. Allocation of lands such as graveyard or ponds etc. except to their original owners, tantamounts to depriving scheme‑holders from their entitlements and therefore, the respondent's appeal was rightly accepted by the Collector (Consolidation) on valid grounds. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding withdrawal of fragmented pieces from six different schemes is speculative at best. If the respondents are prepared to accept those `pieces' in lieu of the graveyard then it is their discretion. I do not agree that it would violate the principle of consolidation as the endeavour of the Consolidation Authorities is to reduce the number of plots in a revenue estate and not in all individual Khatas. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./418/R????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.