MUHAMMAD MALIK Versus GHULAM RASOOL , Ch. Rafiq Ahmad
ORDER
This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 4‑6‑1986 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala, whereby appeal filed by the respondents was accepted.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Consolidation Scheme of the village was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 30‑3‑1982. The petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the Collector (Cons.) on 23‑2‑1986. That order was challenged by the respondents before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala, who accepted it through his impugned order. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during consolidation operations the petitioner was deprived of his Niaeen land near Abadi Deh. It was valuable land being irrigated by Tubewell. In lieu thereof he was given inferior land comprising Khasra Nos. 1714 to 1718 (14 kanals 13 marlas), which was situated near a permanent Nallah where he had no land previously. On appeal the Collector (Cons.) has redressed his grievance by returning his land near Abadi Deh. With regard to the point of limitation learned counsel has stated that since Parchi Ishtimal was not handed over to the petitioner therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. So, the Collector has rightly condoned the delay, while the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) without any lawful authority has reverted the parties to their original schemes. Learned counsel has also stated that the Collector (Cons.) has made changes in two different schemes of the petitioner, viz. 362/1 and 94. The respondents were bound to file two separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) but they have filed only one appeal, therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was not justified in vacating the order of the Collector (Cons.) on a single appeal. He has further contended that the respondents have still held more land than their entitlement near Abadi Deh. The prayer of the petitioner is that the impugned order be declared without any lawful authority.
4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 17 has argued that the order of the Collector (Cons.) was quite improper as on account of it the land given to the respondents was not previously held by them and vice versa the land taken away from the khata of these respondents was not previously owned or possessed by the petitioner except few marlas which were quite negligible. The owners of that land neither filed any appeal against them nor they were impleaded as a party by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim such land which was not owned by him previously. The learned counsel has further stated that after the confirmation of the scheme the possessions changed hands. The record was returned to Mahal Side so there was no occasion in making such changes. As such the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has rightly set aside the order of the Collector (Cons.). He has further contended that the petitioner did not object to the point of filing single appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), therefore, he cannot be allowed to take this plea at this stage. He has further argued that the genuine grievances of the parties cannot be brushed aside on mere technical grounds. As such the impugned order was passed in accordance with the law and calls for no interference.
5. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 18 to 24 has stated that since they were not hit .by the Collector's order, therefore, they have no objection if that order is restored.
6. I have considered these arguments and have examined the record. The perusal of sketch‑map prepared by the Patwari shows that the petitioner had held some land in the vicinity of village Goraya. During consolidation operations he was deprived of that land. In lieu thereof he was accommodated on both the sides of Nallah where he had no land before consolidation operations. In fact the respondents have held considerable land near the Nallah and, therefore, it was they who should have been adjusted there. Further, the respondents Nos.l to 17 were given about 6 acres of land near Abadi Deh as against entitlement of about 6 kanals. On the face of it, this appears an unequitable distribution amongst the parties during consolidation operations and the Collector (Cons. ) had rightly redressed' the complaint of the petitioner. The land taken away from the respondents was also not previously owned/possessed by them. They have still held more land than their entitlement near Abadi Deh. The appeal of the respondents before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was also defective. The proper course for the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was that before reaching final conclusion he should have directed the respondents to remove that defect but he failed to do so. In the presence of this legal defect the impugned order is not justifiable. On point of law as well as on merits as discussed above, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the Collector's order, dated 23‑2‑1986 between the parties.
A . A . /276/R Revision accepted.