MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others vs BASHIR AHMAD and others
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition challenging the orders of Consolidation Authorities regarding the consolidation of land holdings. The core legal question is whether the final consolidation proceedings resulted in an increase in the number of blocks held by the petitioners, thereby violating the provisions of section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Supreme Court holds that the petition lacks merit, finding through explanations and charts provided by the law officer that the petitioners' land was originally scattered into 13 blocks before consolidation and was ultimately reduced to 9 blocks through various appellate and revisional proceedings, rather than being increased from an intermediate 5-block arrangement erroneously relied upon by the petitioners. Consequently, no violation of the Ordinance occurred. The key principle laid down is that the evaluation of whether consolidation has reduced holdings must be measured against the landowners' pre-consolidation status rather than interim or superseded orders of inferior authorities. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the consolidation of land into nine blocks from an original thirteen blocks violates section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960?
- Can a party rely on an interim order of an inferior consolidation authority to claim an increase in land blocks when the ultimate appellate proceedings show an overall reduction?
- Section 2(f), West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- Notice was issued to the Advocate-General (Punjab) to assist the Court with reference to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Revenue and Consolidation Authorities had in the course of the consolidation proceedings, increased the number of blocks held by the petitioner instead of reducing them. According to the learned counsel, the land of the petitioners had now been increased from 4 blocks to 9 blocks. Accordingly, the orders of the Consolidation Authorities were in contravention of the provisions of section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
2. ' Mr. M.M. Saeed Baig appearing on behalf of the Advocate-General, Punjab has explained with the help of a detailed charts, that the land of the petitioners before the commencement of consolidation proceedings was scattered into 13 blocks. It was only in pursuance of the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officers, dated 24-6-1975 that their land was consolidated into 5 blocks. However, on further appeals, remands revisions by the parties to higher Courts, the final position that emerged was that the land of the petitioners was consolidated into 9 blocks. The submission was that the contention that blocks into which the petitioners' land before consolidation was enhanced as against the blocks held by him before the consolidation was not correct.
3. It is evident that the petitioners cannot rely on an order, dated 24-6-1975 of an inferior Consolidation Authority whereby their blocks were reduced to 5 and on its basis contend that the ultimate Consolidation Authorities had erred in law by increasing the blocks of land held by them into 9 blocks. Since originally the land of the petitioners was scattered into 13 blocks, which have ultimately been reduced to 9 blocks, they cannot complain of any violation of section 2(f) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The petition therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.