KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE

Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the consolidation scheme of Village, Pat.hanwali, Tehsil Wazirabad,' District Gujranwala, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 29‑10‑1969, After protracted litigation, matter came up before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on the appeal of respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner found that the respondent owned a large area at Chah Babewala near Abadi Deh major portion whereof' was withdrawn from them during consolidation and allotted to Khushi Muhammad petitioner and one Muhammad Hussain and in lieu thereof, respondents were given land at Chah Pipalwala which was of an inferior quality. Consequent upon these findings, learned Additional Commissioner by order dated 11‑6‑1980 made certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties whereby land measuring 32 Kanals and 6 Marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 682 min (1 Kanal), 686 (2 Kanals‑6 Marlas). 664 (8 Kanals), 651 min (5 Kanals), and 60.1 (8 Kanals) was withdrawn from the Khata of Khushi Muhammad petitioner and given to respondents. Petitioner was accommodated at Chah Pipalwala.

2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the Board of Revenue in revision which was dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation) vide order dated 22‑1‑1984 holding that the land demanded by the petitioner was owned and possessed by the respondents and had been rightly restored to them by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation)".

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue that the land withdrawn from the petitioner's Khata by the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was owned and possessed by the respondents. Learned counsel claims that out of the area of 32 Kanals and 6 Marlas withdrawn from the petitioners, 15 Kanals comprised in khasra No.651 (6 Kanals‑7 Marlas) and 661 (8 Kanals‑13 Marlas) were owned and possessed by the petitioner since before consolidation. Learned counsel for the respondents quite frankly concedes that the whole of khasra No.661 and part of Khasra No. 651 were owned and possessed by the petitioner before consolidation. In view of the position conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents, the finding of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, that the entire area withdrawn from the petitioner and restored to the respondents was originally owned and possessed by the respondents before the consolidation does not appear to be wholly correct. Since the premises on which the petitioner's revision was dismissed has been accepted to be erroneous though partly, case requires re‑examination by the learned Member. In the circumstances the impugned order of the learned Member Board of Revenue, is set aside and the case is remanded to him for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, of course, after examining/ascertaining the correct factual position regarding the previous ownership of the land measuring 32 Kanals and 6 Marlas which was restored to the respondents vide the impugned order. With these observations, writ petition is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./K‑94/L Order accordingly.