ASHRAF ALI SHAH Versus MUMTAZ ALI SHAH

ORDER

This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, against the order dated 15‑7‑1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Bahawalpur, whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was rejected.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Consolidation Scheme of the village was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance, on 29‑3‑1983. The petitioner tiled an appeal against the confirmation order before the Collector (Cons.) which was accepted on 14‑11‑1983. The petitioner being dissatisfied with that order, filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide impugned order dismissed it with the observation that respondent should pay Rs.100 by way of compensation for, the wall to the petitioner. Hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard the parties. The main contention of the petitioner is that although the Collector (Cons.) had redressed the complaint of the petitioner yet he had erred in withdrawing petitioner's own land comprising Khasra No.234/2 Killa No.3, where he had his house, Killa No.7, where he had well and Killa No.25 of Rect. No.233/4 where he had planted an orchard. He has prayed that these numbers be also returned to him.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner was Member of Advisory Committee. His scheme was confirmed with his consent. Ever then he lodged an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector and the land demanded by him was allocated to him, therefore, his grievance was fully redressed. In lieu of it the petitioner had to part with some area even though this may not be to his entire liking. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has already thrashed out the case of the petitioner which calls for no further interference.

5. I have considered the arguments and examined the record. The perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was a member of the Advisory Committee and during consolidation operation his Wanda was proposed with his consent. He was not supposed to file an appeal against a consented order. But in spite of this fact he filed an appeal which was accepted by the Collector and the area demanded by the petitioner was restored to him. Now the contentions of the petitioner for having aforementioned field numbers are not supported by record. It is also difficult to give each and every number to a right‑holder according to his choice. Some adjustments have to be made in the process of consolidation. The overall entitlement of the petitioner is almost the same as his earlier holdings in that he has been given 165K‑17M as against 165K 15M. In view of the above stated position I see no force in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

A.A./278/R Revision dismissed.