1994 PLP 144 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 13‑‑‑Consolidation of land‑‑‑Land in dispute was given to respondents in consolidation proceedings‑‑‑‑Petitioner challenged consolidation scheme on ground that he was in possession of that land and had raised some construction thereon‑‑‑Appeal of petitioner was dismissed being barred by time‑‑‑Consolidation Authorities had unanimously held that respondents were in possession of land in dispute and had a better claim‑‑ Report submitted by Consolidation Officer in persuance of an order of High Court also did not advance case of petitioner as according to report no construction as claimed by petitioner existed and that land was not shown to be in possession of any person‑‑‑Petitioner having failed to prove his case his appeal against consolidation scheme which otherwise was time‑barred was rightly dismissed. Muhammad Rashid Chaughtai for Petitioner. Yusuf Ali Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1992. Brief facts leading to the institution of the petition are that consolidation scheme regarding Mauza Dullaywala, Tehsil Kalore Kot, District Bhakkar was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Darya Khan on 30‑9 1980 whereby land bearing Khasra No.1639/2/3 was given to private respondents. The petitioner challenged the scheme on the ground that he was in possession of the disputed land and had raised some construction thereon. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.)/Collector, Mianwali vide his order dated 18‑1‑1982. The Collector noted in the order that the petitioner had filed a similar appeal against one Yahya Khan in respect of the same land which was dismissed. The appeal in the present case was filed with a delay of about one year and no justification was ,found to condone the delay. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha which was dismissed vide order dated 17‑4‑1982. The appellate authority held it as a fact that the appellant was not in previous possession of the disputed land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue vide his order dated 10‑8‑1983. The petitioner filed a review petition before the M.B.R. which was dismissed on 25‑1‑1984. Hence, this petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and that of respondents at considerable length. The Consolidation Authorities including A the Collector, the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have unanimously held that Ghulam Rasool, respondent No.l was in possession of disputed Khasra numbers and had a better claim over it. The report submitted by the consolidation officer in pursuance of an order passed by this Court also does not advance the petitioner's case because according to the report no construction existed on the spot and that the land was not shown to be in A possession of any person. Moreover, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was rightly dismissed as being time‑barred and the petitioner could not persuade the authorities below or even this Court that the said order suffered from any illegality. Hence, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑490/L Petition dismissed.