JALAL Versus ABDUL AZIZ , Bashir Ahmad Mushtri
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 27‑8‑1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that in Consolidation operations Kh. No. 467 measuring 5K‑13M was adjusted in the Wanda of the petitioners. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), against the confirmation of scheme. The Collector took away that number from the Khata of the petitioners and adjusted in the Khata of the respondents. The petitioners challenged that order before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who dismissed it on 27‑8‑1986. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Khasra No. 467 was allotted to Manda predecessor‑in- interest of the petitioners at Khata No. 34 Register RL71I or. 10‑6‑1954. During Consolidation operations that number was also adjusted in their Wanda. But, the respondent after the lapse of more than 6 years lodged an appeal before the Collector, who on the misstatement of Naib Sadar Kanungo to the effect that disputed Khasra number in the first instance was allotted to Gama predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents on 26‑11‑1952 at Khata No. 31, Register RL‑11 took away that Khasra number from the petitioners and allotted it to the respondents. In lieu thereof the petitioners were given no land. The order of the Collector is without any lawful authority and liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that disputed Khasra number was in fact allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents on 26‑11‑1952 at Khata No. 31 of Register RL‑II. However, it was cancelled but subsequently it was again confirmed to them on 28‑6‑1960 at Khata No. 63/31 of Register RL‑II. As such the respondents were better entitled to get that number. The Collector had thus rightly allotted that number to them.
5. I have considered the arguments and have examined the record of the case. I have also minutely checked the Register RL‑II presented before me by the field staff. An examination of this register reveals that although Khasra No. 467 (5K‑12M) stood entered at Khata No. 31 of Gama son of Maula Bakhsh predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents yet before its confirmation the proposal was cancelled from his name in pursuance of "Fard Haqiat" received from the Central Record Office which revealed that his entitlement was less than what he had originally claimed. Meanwhile, on 10‑6‑1954, Khasra No. 467 was entered and confirmed to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners at Khata No. 34 against their claim Form No. 2060. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents was allotted land against a fresh Khata No. 63/31 in Register RL‑11 on 28‑6‑1960. However, Khasra No. 467 was again mentioned in the Khata but then this was a case of double allotment. Thus it would be clear that the contention of the respondents that they were allotted Khasra No. 467 in 1952 is not supported by record. In fact the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was the first allottee of the said Khasra number. In case of double allotment obviously the allotment made earlier to a genuine claimant within his entitlement, holds the ground. Khasra No. 467, was therefore, rightly adjusted to the petitioners during Consolidation operations. The Collector (Cons.) was not justified in taking away this number from the petitioners and his order therefore cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated above the revision petition is accepted, orders of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 27‑8‑1986 and Collector's order dated 5‑6‑1986 are set aside and the original Consolidation scheme is restored between the parties.
A . A . /280/R Revision accepted.