GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 7‑1‑1987 of Additional Commissioner (Cons.), whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that consolidation scheme was passed with the consent of the parties and possession changed hands and respondents had sown the crop of "Maser" during Rabi 1987 in Khasras Nos.2277 and 2278. Despite this the respondents filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) and deliberately gave wrong address of the petitioner showing his residence in village Garhi Gondar notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was resident of village Mahiwal and ultimately obtained an ex parte order against him. The Collector at the back of the petitioner took away Khasras Nos.2259‑min, 2258‑min and 2205‑min from the petitioner and allocated to the respondents who had no concern with these numbers. He has further contended that before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), the petitioner could not reach the Court in time due to heavy fog and that the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) instead of dismissing his appeal in default alone had erroneously also dismissed it on the point of limitation. He has stated that since the petitioner was for all intents and purposes condemned unheard, therefore, question of limitation was immaterial as no limit runs against such a void order. He has prayed that orders of both the Courts being ab initio void be set aside and the original consolidation scheme be ordered to be maintained.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that Collector's order was quite appropriate as petitioner's "sem" affected land comprising Khasras Nos.2277, 2278 which was wrongly adjusted in the "wanda" of the respondents during consolidation operations was returned to the petitioner. The land given in lieu of it to the respondents belonged to some other owners, so the petitioner had no locus standi to claim that area as he had no preferential right over it. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had also rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the point of limitation.
4. I have considered the arguments and have examined the record. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has dismissed the appeal of then petitioner on account of non‑appearance of the petitioner and also on the point of limitation. The right course for the Additional Commissioner was to have dismissed it on default only. This would have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to apply for restoration of his appeal. The Additional Commissioner has erred in deciding it on the point of limitation without hearing the petitioner. To this extent he has not acted judiciously. This decision left no choice with the petitioner but to file this revision.
5. Similarly the order of the Collector (Cons.) is also bad in law as when the possession changed hands amicably soon after the confirmation of the scheme, then there was hardly any need to dislocate the wandas of the parties. In addition the address of the petitioner had been incorrectly quoted before the Collector by the respondents which resulted into securing an ex parte order against the petitioner. This in fact amounts to abusing the process of justice. The Khasras Nos.2205, 2258 and 2259 were allocated to the petitioner during consolidation operations. These numbers belonged to a third party who did not object to it. The respondents have no preferential right over these numbers. The Collector (Cons.) without any justification divided these numbers between the parties. By doing so, the Collector also gave an awkward shape to the plot‑bandi. The Collector had hit hard not only at the petitioner under cover of ex parte proceedings against him but also at the principles of consolidation. Consequently the revision petition is accepted, the orders of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 7‑1‑1987 and Collector (Cons.) dated 13‑9‑1986 are set aside and original scheme is restored between the parties.
A . A . / 279/R ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.