P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(b) Consolidation of holdings

‑Buyer getting land in excess of co‑sharer‑seller's entitlement‑Excess area, although incorporated in mutation to be taken away during consolidation proceedings. Ali Akbar for Petitioners. Ataullah Qureshi for Respondents. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 27th of November 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore, whereby he rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. The facts of the case are that the petitioners got land of their choice from the A.C.O. The respondents went in appeal to the A.D.C. (Cons.) contending that the petitioners had got land in excess of their entitlement. Their predecessor had bought one -fifth share in the joint khata, but the list of khasra numbers which was mentioned in the registered deed and subsequently incorporated in the mutation, gave the petitioners, area in excess of one‑fifth share. The A.D.C. (Cons.), accepted the appeal and directed that, during consolidation operations, the excess area should be taken away from the petitioners. The petitioners felt aggrieved and went in revision to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), but it was rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This is a case in which joint khata has been partitioned during consolidation operations. It is true that the petitioners' prede cessors got land in excess of the entitlement of the vendor but, by the mere mention of particular khasra numbers, neither the seller nor the buyer can deprive other co‑sharers of their legitimate share in the joint khata. The only effect of the registered deed, the mutation and the jamabandi would be that so far as the one‑fifth share of the khata is concerned, the petitioners' predeces sors would be deemed to be co‑sharers in their own right and as for the excess area, they will be regarded as the co‑sharers in possession of the land in excess of their actual share. By no stretch of imagination can the buyer be in a better position than the original seller. The petitioners' predecessors cannot claim adverse possession because adverse possession can never accrue to a co‑sharer. Since the buyer steps into the shoes of the seller co‑sharer, he cannot claim adverse possession in respect of the excess area. It is the usual practice that excess areas are takeaway during consolidation proceedings involving partition joint khatas from co-sharers who are in possession of land greater than their entitlement. In these circumstances, the order given by the learned A.D.C. (Cons.) and the learned Additional Commis sioner (Consolidation) were quite correct. No interference is called for. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Revision dismissed.