Consolidation of Holdings

Board of Revenue decided matter after embarking upon every aspect of case and had rightly maintained order of Consolidation Officer

Order in question was neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction nor passed in excess of jurisdiction by Board of Revenue

Petitioners failed to point out any jurisdictional defect/error in order in question

In exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction, High Court had only to see as to whether a Tribunal or Court acted without jurisdiction or violated statute or law laid down by the superior Courts

High Court was not called upon to re-appraise the evidence

Constitutional petitions were not to be decided in the manner of appeals

High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of findings of Tribunals below

Constitutional Jurisdiction was not attracted unless glaring injustice or error of law was pointed out

Constitutional petition against consolidation matter was not maintainable

Mere allocation and adjustments made in the scheme and upheld by the statutory functionaries would not entitle the petitioner to seek a judicial review

Factual controversy could not be resolved by High Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction until and unless there was a deficiency in entitlement of right holder, adjustment or allocation of land in consolidation scheme

Constitutional provisions were not designed to empower High Court to interfere with decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely because in its opinion decision was wrong

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Board of Revenue

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

High Court set aside the orders passed by revenue authorities and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh through a well-reasoned order

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Phrase "no person…" used in S. 5 of Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002 means "no acquirer..."

Such finding is supported by the wording of S. 6(1) of the Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002

Originally, the word "person" was used under S. 5 of the Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002 for the one who acquired more than 25% voting shares of a company, however, while explaining the acquisition requirement of more than 25% voting shares under S. 6(1) of the Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002, the word "person" had been replaced with the word "acquirer"

"Acquirer" or "persons" have been used interchangeably.

Mere possession and construction over disputed land which was included in Wand of petitioners did not create any vested right or title in favour of petitioners

Respondents being landowners were entitled to have right over estate/disputed land regarding petitioners which was established by two hierarches of revenue department as consolidation proceedings were carried out in absence of respondents

Respondents were not heard by Consolidation Officer before passing consolidation order in question in favour of petitioners and same was rightly rectified subsequently by appellate authority

High Court declared that orders passed by appellate authority against petitioners were rightly passed in favour of respondents as respondents had not been treated in accordance with law

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by appellate authority as same was passed in consonance with spirit of law, facts and circumstances

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Delay in filing appeal was condoned by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) which remained unchallenged and same had attained finality

Order passed in any proceedings under West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by the Revenue or Consolidation Officer could be revised or modified by the Commissioner and Board of Revenue

Revision by the respondents before Board of Revenue or the Commissioner was maintainable in circumstances

Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), in the present-case, had confined himself up to the land possessed and owned by the respondents and the land given to the petitioners by the Consolidation Officer

Order with regard to modification in consolidation had been subsequently confirmed in revision by the Board of Revenue which was not open to any exception

Joint/mushtarka khata was divided and "Wandas" were prepared by the Consolidation Officer as per agreement between the parties

Parties were bound by their agreement and they could not revert from the same

Consent of the parties had been proved from record as they put their signatures/thumb impressions in token of its correctness

Revision and review petitions filed by the petitioners had been dismissed on findings of facts

No mistake had been pointed out in the impugned orders by the petitioners

High Court could only consider the question of jurisdiction or illegality committed by the lower forum

No jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity was found in the impugned orders

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Civil courts were courts of ultimate and plenary jurisdiction and they had jurisdiction to see whether any Authority or Tribunal had exceeded or overstepped the authority of the same or whether actions of the same were ultra vires the statute under which said Tribunal or Authority had passed the order impugned before the civil courts

When there were allegations that an order was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation then not only the said Tribunal or Authority had inherent jurisdiction to recall or set aside the same but also civil courts would step in to undo the fraud and right the wrong

Civil courts should not assume jurisdiction unless case of a person did fall within the ambit of mala fide, fraud or misrepresentation

Plaintiffs filed revision before Board of Revenue which was dismissed and they also moved review petition which was also turned down and both the said orders had been challenged by filing civil suit

Revisional Court had debarred Trial Court to assume jurisdiction under S. 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance,1960

No infirmity was pointed out in the impugned order

Civil court should refuse to proceed further with the lis unless same was vested with the jurisdiction

Trial Court should first advert to the question whether the plaint was competently filed or not and if said court did not have jurisdiction either pecuniary, territorial or that of subject matter then same would have no option but to stay hands from the matter

Suit instituted by the plaintiffs would fall within the purview and mischief of S. 26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance,1960

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and had prayed that possession of suit-land be restored to him

Impugned order was passed by Executive District Officer (Revenue) which was further appealable before the Member Board of Revenue, but the petitioner had not adopted the remedy provided to him under the law; and instead approached High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Number of disputed questions were involved between the parties including the question of restoration of possession which could not be agitated in the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court; nor the matter of possession could be decided particularly when the petitioner had given up the available alternate remedy

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Respondents filed an appeal before-Deputy District Officer (Consolidation) with delay of two years, two months and twenty days, who dismissed the same

Executive District Officer (Revenue) .accepted appeal filed by the respondents against order of Deputy District Officer (Consolidation) and mode some amendments in the wandas of the parties

Validity

Executive District Officer, (Revenue) had confined himself to the exchange of land only and did not discuss merits/demerits of the exchange; and the arguments advanced by the counsel of both the parties

Record and site map prepared by the Patwari halqa, corresponded to the order of Deputy District Officer (Consolidation)

Order of Deputy District Officer (Consolidation) was upheld; order of Executive District Officer (Revenue), being not maintainable as against the spirit of consolidation, was set aside, in circumstances.

Ownership of respondents over the land attached to the 9 Wells, which was part of Shamlat Deh, was conditional as per Wajib-ul-Arz of 1880, 1903-04 & 1924-25

Said land was partitioned by Consolidation Officer along with Shamlat land among shareholders on the basis of proprietary area owned by each, as stipulated in the said Wajib-ul-Arz

Counsel for respondents had objected to said distribution contending that said land was sole ownership of respondents and was not part of Shamlat Deh

Order of consolidation was rejected by Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) and Consolidation Scheme was set aside vide impugned order

Rights of landowners pertaining to distribution of Shamlat Deh were determined on the basis of Wajib-ul-Arz, which would take precedence over entries in successive Jamanbandies including Jamanbandi immediately preceding the consolidation

Addl. Commissioner vide impugned order had erroneously found that Jamanbandi immediately preceding consolidation was vital for consolidation

Wajib-ul-Arz and next two settlements revealed that land attached to and under the wells, was part of Shamlat Deh and was granted to respondents on the condition that at the time of distribution of village 'Shamlat, any area in that land owned by respondents in excess of their right would be deducted from their share out of that land and distributed among share-holders of remaining village Shamlat land

Conditions contained in Wajib-ul-Arz were binding on concerned party

Entries by the Revenue Officer in the revenue record not supported by any document, could not create any right, title or interest in the land

Land in question being part of Shamlat Deh, no entries in revenue record made subsequently could change the initial character of the land which was Shamlat Deh

No record or legal basis was available to substantiate the fact that land in question which initially was Shamlat Deh had lost that character with the passage of time

Jamanbandi was merely a record of rights which would give effect to conditions contained in Wajib-ul-Arz, while Wajib-ul-Arz was a primary document and the Jamanbandi would hold only a secondary position in relation to Wajib-ul-Arz

As per condition of Wajib-ul-Arz land attached to and under the Wells was part of Shamlat Deh and it was protected against partition only to the extent of share of respondents in total Shamlat Deh

Impugned order of Addl. Commissioner, in circumstances, being not lawful, was set aside.

Consolidation Scheme of Mauza concerned was confirmed with the consent of the parties and 8 Kanals and 7 Marlas land was allocated to both appellant and respondent jointly with fifty fifty shares which was done for the reason that both of them had jointly installed an expensive Turbine in the said land

Respondent after about four years of the confirmation, challenged the same in appeal but Collector Consolidation dismissed the appeal being time-barred and also on the ground that Mauza concerned had already stood transferred to Revenue side and that the Scheme had been approved with the consent of parties

Revision filed by respondent against judgment of Collector Consolidation, was accepted by Additional Commissioner Consolidation who withdrew 4 Kanals and 10. Marlas of land from one Khasra number from joint Scheme and allocated said land to the respondent

Said order of Additional Commissioner had been assailed by appellant in appeal before Board of Revenue

Evidence on record had, proved that Turbine existing on the land was installed and owned jointly by both appellant and respondent and respondent could not prove that he had paid the share of amount to appellant which he had spent for installation of Turbine

Respondent had challenged the Scheme after about 4 years because land in dispute had turned into land of commercial type because of its being located on Highway and respondent attempted to grab it because of its higher value

Additional Commissioner unlawfully allocated the said land to respondent to the extreme disadvantage of appellant

Scheme having been confirmed with consent of the parties, contention of respondent that appellant had got, scheme sanctioned by keeping respondent in dark, was repelled

While hollow and bogus claim of the respondent stood falsified by his own contradictory stand and his request being time-barred, Additional Commissioner was not justified to accept unlawful demand of the respondent

Order of Additional Commissioner which was passed in total disregard of law and dictates of justice, being unsustainable, was set aside, in circumstances.

Appellants, after rejection of their appeal, kept silent for about three years and thereafter moved a miscellaneous application before Consolidation Officer which was rejected

Appellant instead of challenging said rejection order, re-agitated original order of dismissal of appeal through another appeal

Second appeal against order earlier passed in first appeal was not competent in law in absence of any plausible explanation given by the appellants as to why the matter was not further challenged when their first appeal was dismissed

Even if original order was void, subsequent appeal was barred by time and the appellant had failed to satisfy the Court that second appeal was competent as earlier appeal having been dismissed, appellant did not opt to challenge that order

Matter could not be re-agitated through a fresh appeal under the principle of past and closed transaction

Even otherwise Consolidation Authorities after finalization of the Consolidation Scheme had become functus officio and the matter could not be re-agitated through miscellaneous application or through fresh appeal.

Petitioner was unable to controvert the fact that he had obtained more area in class III land than his previous holding and also that there was no reduction if the calculation was made by classification of land

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as no interference was called for in findings of fact by High Court.

Land owner not shown to have suffered in any manner in course of consolidation by allotment of new land against his original land Held, such land owner cannot have any grievance against consolidation proceedings.

S. 10-Consolidation of holdings-Objection to-Contention that due to oversight a certain area of land had been omitted and had to be restored to petitioner-Lower Court accepting submission and directing Subordinate Officer to consider proposal, such proposal reconsidered and found in accord with remand order-Order not being final but only an interim order, contention, held, without factual basis and without substance.

Irregularities during consolidation operations-Operations ordered to be taken afresh-Possession of landowners acquired under old scheme, however, not to be disturbed merely to bring mortgagee and proprietary, areas together.

Mortgaged area-Request for settlement of whole mortgaged area in one block in particular square likely to result in dislocation of persons already settled and having proprietary rights in area-Not acceded to.

Scattered plots of co-sharers brought together during consolidation proceedings and joint khata partitioned as desired by co-sharers Proceedings governed by West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) and not by Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887).

Additional Commissioner directing fresh consolidation of village and exclusion of State land from scheme Board declined to interfere.

Consolidation of Holdings Area to be taken into consideration is area which is already held by landowners-Increase in produce index units of area subsequent to consolidation proceedings

Area in lieu of additional units not to be given in interest of those already settled.

Consolidation of Holdings Partition of joint khatas of co-sharers-Joint khatas and exclusive khatas cannot be treated separately but have to be pooled-Co-sharers get separate blocks, out of the pool according to shares held by them

Consolidation of Holdings Scheme including evacuee trust land-Notice to be issued to representative of Evacuee Trust Board

Exclusion of such land from scheme not necessary.

Consolidation of Holdings Party already holding land in compact block-Not to be disturbed in order to give another party one compact block instead of two.

Consolidation of Holdings Inclusion of evacuee trust land in scheme without concurrence of, Evacuee Trust Board-Illegality, vitiating consolidation proceedings-Not curable by payment of compensation under S. 12, West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)-Consolidation operations to be taken up afresh after excluding trust land.

Consolidation of Holdings Shamilat - Land declared evacuee and entered as such in revenue papers while framing scheme-Cannot be included in shamilat unless existing entries are amended.

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.

Consolidation of Holdings Suggestion resulting in allocating land in awkward blocks-Not acceptable.