MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD

1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.--- This petition is from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑7‑1975 allowing Writ Petition No. 1626 of 1965 moved by the respondents herein in the circumstances set out below,

2. The dispute arises out of the proceedings for consolidation of holdings in Chak No. 126/15--L, Tehsil Khanewal. District Multan and is confined to a small area measuring about 16 marlas situate in square No. 60, Killa No. 1 (hereinafter called the site in dispute). It appears that square No. 60 Kills No 1 is situate on the fringe of village abadi and belonged to one Abdul Muqit Khan, but the parties to this litigation prior to the commencement of the consolidation proceedings had, unlawfully occupied different portions of this kills. The 16 marlas In dispute are in the occupation of the petitioners herein over which they had also raised some structure, sad have thereby converted it into abadi. It appears that the parties in their keenness to retain the areas in their unlawful occupation as aforesaid, offered on 22‑6‑1963 to surrender double the area out of their respective holdings apparently to compensate Abdul Muqit Khan. This proposal was accepted by the Consolidation Officer, and the petitioners as also the respondents were allowed to retain the areas in their unlawful possession belonging to, Abdul Muqit Khan. It appears that while respondents surrendered twice the area in their occupation, the petitioners did not abide by their under taking but continued in the occupation of the site in dispute without surrendering any area in lieu thereof out of their own respective holdings. On this score the respondents felt aggrieved in that the petitioners had thus been assigned larger area in the consolidation proceedings than their due entitlement. Accordingly, the respondents herein tiled an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed on 29‑6‑1964 as barred by time. A revision before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) by the respon dents however, succeeded on the ground that the petitioners having failed to surrender the area as hitherto undertaken by them had become dis entitled to site in dispute or else they would be getting area in excess of their due entitlement. The order of the Additional Commissioner is dated 14‑10‑1964.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), the petitioners filed 2nd revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, who, on the one hand accepted the finding that the petitioners did not abide by their undertaking to surrender twice the area in their unlawful occupa tion and originally belonging to Abdul Muqit Khan, and were guilty of "sharp practice", but at the same time allowed them to retain the site in dispute, on the condition that they would surrender an equivalent area which will be reserved for the purpose of Eidgah. The order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue is dated 20‑2‑1965.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Member Board of Revenue, the respon dents moved a writ petition which was accepted. The view taken by the High Court was that the petitioners having been found guilty of "sharp practice" in consequence of which they manoeuvred to get the site in dispute in excess of their due entitlement ought not to have been allowed redress in revisional jurisdiction. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue was "self contradictory", and therefore, "without lawful authority". Accordingly, the learned Judge restored the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) dated 14-10‑1964.

5. In seeking leave, Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the reasons on the basis of which the learned Judge in the High Court had thought it fit to interfere with the order of the Member. Board of Revenue in a dispute arising in consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel stressed that the petitioners were prepared to surrender the area they had originally undertaken to do which the parties had agreed to reserve as Eidgah. Learned counsel however, did not dispute the finding on fact that tire petitioners had failed to abide by their undertaking and yet to retain possession of the site in dispute to which they were not otherwise entitled to do. This apparently happened because Mukhtar Ahmed the first petitioner was a member of the Advisory Committee. While one may not quite agree with the learned Judge that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue was "without lawful authority" according to its true connota tion but that per so is not sufficient reason for the grant of special leave particularly when the inevitable effect would be to allow the petitioners retain undue advantage which they were able to secure by virtue of the special position occupied by the first petitioner. To do so would be to, perpetuate injustice or at any rate, amount to acting in aid of it, as is clearly brought out in the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 14‑10‑1964.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.