RABIA BIBI Versus SUBBA
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 21‑4‑1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala, whereby appeal filed by the respondent No.l was accepted.
Briefly stated the facts are that consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer by which the joint khata of the parties was partitioned. The petitioners filed an appeal against the confirmation before the Collector (Cons.), who, vide his order dated 5‑5‑1980 accepted it. Respondents challenged that order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who, vide his order dated 13‑3‑1982 remanded it. On remand, the Collector vide his order dated 16‑7‑1986 dismissed the same meaning thereby that the consolidation scheme between the parties was maintained. That order was against assailed in appeal by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who on 26‑8‑1986 sent it back to the Consolidation Officer to scrutinize the entitlement of the parties keeping in view their possession and if any deficiency of area was found in the entitlement of the petitioners a proposal be submitted to the Collector (Cons.). Consequently, the Collector vide his order dated 7‑2‑1987 made certain adjustments in the khata of the parties. Suba again challenged that order in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who, vide his impugned order, accepted the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that during consolidation operations respondent No.l managed to get superior land classified as Class‑III and his inferior land as Class‑I. Thereafter, he got separated joint khata without the consent of the petitioners. By that way the respondent No.l has not only been able to receive better quality of land but also obtained 45 kanals in excess of his entitlement. On the other hand the petitioners were given 51 kanals less land in their over all entitlement and also in the bargain were given inferior land. The petitioners were put to hardship during consolidation operations and the Collector vide his order dated 7‑2‑1982 redressed their grievances by restoring them their Class‑III land according to their due share whereas the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) without any lawful authority set aside the said order of the Collector. He has further argued that the impugned order is without any lawful authority and liable to be quashed on the ground that the observation of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) that in terms of Class‑I land the entitlement of the petitioners is in accordance with their entitlement is factually incorrect as there is a considerable decrease in the total area of the petitioners. Due to wrong classification of soil as narrated above, this observation is baseless. It has wrongly been held that the land given to the respondent is situated in the middle of the petitioners' plot and likewise land given to the petitioners is situated in the heart of the respondent's plot. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has also wrongly observed that Khasras Nos. 33 and 34 which were shown to have been withdrawn from respondent No.l were never given to him at Scheme No. 70. He has further contended that the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was not competent to touch the point of limitation which was never agitated by the respondent at any stage before passing the impugned order. So subsequently it cannot be questioned.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that appeal of the petitioners against confirmation was time‑barred by 4J months. That delay was not condoned by the Collector (Cons.), therefore, his order was unlawful. During consolidation operations the petitioners were given land according to their entitlement and in terms of Class‑I land there is no shortfall in their khata. He has further stated that his client has developed the land after hard labour during a decade and it was not advisable for the Collector to slice away that land from him. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) after thorough examination of the record has set aside the Collector's order dated 7‑2‑1987 which calls for no interference.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments. I have examined the record as well as the sketch map prepared by the Patwari (Cons.) The perusal of the record shows that prior to consolidation operations the total entitlement of the petitioners was 460 kanals 11 marlas. In consolidation they were given 408 kanals 19 marlas i.e. 51 kanals 12 marlas less land than their original holding. The respondent No. 1 was given 275 kanals 5 marlas as against his original holding of 230 kanals 4 marlas which is 45 kanals 1 marla more than his original holding. During consolidation operations respondent No.l received only 7 kanals 8 marlas Class‑I land and thereby succeeded to get more area in adjustment. The Collector (Cons.) vide his order dated 7‑2‑1987 gave 29 kanals of Class‑I land to respondent No.l taking out of his wanda 58 kanals 2 marlas of Class‑III category. Thus, thereby he reduced the gap between the holdings of the parties area‑wise and made re‑distribution equitable between the parties. On that account the order of the Collector seems to be as good for the respondent as for the petitioners, but the respondent was not satisfied with these adjustments. A perusal of the sketch map also shows that Khasras Nos.33 and 34 were adjusted in the Wanda of the respondent in consolidation scheme but the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) ha observed contrary to it. Similarly the observation of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) that the land taken away and allotted inters situated in the middle/heart of each others plots is not supported b the record. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that either wrong map was placed before him or he did not consult the relevant record. In any way, his observations causing setting aside the Collector's order dated 7‑2‑1987 were unwarranted. Further, the point of limitation was also not agitated earlier, therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has not justified to consider this point at belated stage. In this I am fortified by a ruling of the High Court in case PLD 1987 Lahore 22 "Mst. Mahajan v. Mst. Mehtabi etc." in which it has been held that in third round of litigation, the point of limitation cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the foregoing reasons. I find that there is lot of force in contention of the petitioners and the impugned order is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Consequently I hereby allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the Collector's order dated 7‑2‑1987.
A . A . /274/R Revision accepted.