MUHAMMAD YAR KHAN AND 6 Others vs I. U. KHAN, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND Another

1. SALAHUDDIN ARMED, J.-This is an appeal by special leave. As a result of consolidation proceedings in the area, the appellants were allotted certain lands and the allotment was confirmed on the 16th of July, 1962, by the Additional Commissioner (Consolida--tion). Ultimately, respondent No. 1, Member Board of Revenue, by his order dated the 3rd of May, 1963, accepted the revisional application of respondent No. 2 and set aside the aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and directed that the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and collector (Consolidation) be implemented.

2. Respondent No. 2 claims to be a displaced person and his case is that on the 4th of September, 1960, he was allotted agricultural lands measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas within the Municipal limits of Mailsee Town in lieu of urban agricultural land abandoned by him in India. On the 22nd of February 1961, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (1), Multan, cancelled this allotment except a portion on the ground that the land was a potential building site. The appeal of the respondent was accepted by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 15th of May, 1965, and the allotment of the respondent was restored. During the pendency of the appeal, however, consolidation proceedings under the Consolidation of Lands Ordinance, 1960, were started in respect of lands in the area and the disputed land was included in the Consolidation Scheme and was given to the appellants by the Assistant Consolidation officer, on the 16th July 1962. On appeal by the respondent the Collector held the land being an evacuee area, it should remain in the name of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, if it was not allotted to any other refugee, and the case was accordingly, remanded for fresh decision. This position was ultimately accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue, in his order dated 3-5-1963.

3. Leave to appeal has been granted to consider whether it was open to the Member, Board of Revenue to exclude any particular plot from the consolidation proceedings which related to the whole estate or the whole sub-division of an estate.

4. For an answer to this question, it is necessary to refer to the following provisions of the said Ordinance; and Rule 15 there--under :-- West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance VI of 1960): "Section 2(f) `consolidation of holdings' means the redistribu--tion of all or any of the lands in an estate or sub-division of an estate so as to reduce the number of plots; 2(g) `estate' means any area;

(i) for which a separate record-of-rights has been made; or

(ii) which has been separately assessed to land-revenue, or would have been so assessed if the land-revenue had not been released, compounded for or redeemed; or

(iii) which the Board of Revenue may, by general rule or special order, declare to be an estate; "Section 7. When application may be rejected.-(1) Where there appear to be good and sufficient reasons for disallowing an application for consolidation of holdings, or for excluding any land from consolidation, the Consolidation Officer may, at any stage of the proceedings, submit the application to the Collector with the recommendation that the application be rejected in whole or in part, or that the proceedings in respect thereof be quashed.

5. Section 10(4). If the Consolidation Officer fails to bring about an amicable settlement, he shall submit the scheme with his recommendations to the Collector, who after giving notice to the persons concerned and hearing them if they so desire, may after further enquiry by himself or any Consolidation Officer, or without such enquiry, as he may deem fit, reject the scheme or confirm it with or without modifications."

6. West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1960: "Rule 15. Preparation of Scheme.-(1) In preparing a scheme of consolidation himself the Consolidation Officer shall decide, in consultation with the land owners who have agreed to consolidation under clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 4, the Advisory Committee in cases where one has been appointed, and the applicants where an application for consolidation has been made under subsection (2) of section 3, the general lines on which consolidation shall proceed, and, in particular, he shall determine if any land should be excluded from the Scheme for common purposes, such as grazing ground, school, hospital or pond, the disposal of sullage water or for any other special reason."

7. It is thus evident that the definition of "consolidation of holdings" does not contemplate that there must be consolidation of the entire estate or sub-division. Furthermore, the provisions of sections 7 and 10(4) and Rule 15 do envisage exclusion of a portion of the holdings from the consolidation.

8. Within the frame-work of the Ordinance, therefore, the Collector has absolute discretion to confirm consolidation with or without modification.

9. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to set aside the order of respondent No. 1, dated the 3rd of May, 1963.

10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, without any order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.