SHER AHMAD KHAN vs ALAM KHAN and others
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi, which reduced the land allotment (wanda) granted to the petitioner by the Collector (Consolidation) in a consolidation scheme. The petitioner, dissatisfied with the Collector's order, had sought an increase in his allotment based on his hissadari possession. The core legal question was whether an appellate or revisional authority, such as the Additional Commissioner, could suo motu reduce an allotment granted by a lower authority when the respondents had not challenged that lower order. The Board of Revenue held that the Additional Commissioner erred in law by assuming the role of the respondents and granting them relief they had not sought. The Board affirmed that consolidation proceedings must respect the finality of unchallenged orders and that hissadari possession does not constitute a valid basis for the apportionment of wandas. Consequently, the Board set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and restored the Collector's original decision, establishing that an appellate authority cannot grant relief to parties who have not contested the lower court's judgment.
- Can an appellate or revisional authority reduce an allotment granted by a lower authority if the respondents have not challenged that order?
- Does hissadari possession constitute a valid basis for the apportionment of wandas in consolidation proceedings?
- Can an appellate authority grant relief to parties who have not sought such relief or challenged the lower court's order?
ORDER
' The present revision petition is against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi dated 28-4-1986.
2. Briefly the facts are that the Scheme of Consolidation of village Sarwala, Tchsil and District Attock was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Attock vide his order dated 31-3-1980. In this Scheme which is No,47 Sher Ahmad Khan was given 3 kanals 14 marlas in khasra No,272 which is a part of the old khasra No,160. The petitioner felt aggrieved and went in appeal to the Collector (Cons.) who in his order dated 6-10-1985 accepted the appeal partly and gave him khasra Nos.273 and 272/1, measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas.
3. Since the petitioner wanted 20 kanals 8 marlas out of the old khasra No,160, he was not satisfied with this decision and came in a revision petition to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi.
4. The learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) in his order dated 28-4-1986, instead of deciding about his additional entitlement, reduced his wanda by deleting from it khasra Nos.273 and 272/1 measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas which the Collector had given him.
5. The point involved here is a legal one. It is whether the respondents, not having challenged the decision of the Collector (Cons.), dated 6-10-1985, can derive any benefit from the decision of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.). In other words, whether, without the request of the respondents, who never! Appealed against the decision of the Collector (Cons.), the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) could himself assume the role of the respondents and give them relief which they had not come to him to seek. To put in a different way, the question is whether the respondents can have any grievance now against the I order of the Collector. My answer to this question is in the negative.
6. As regards the claim of the petitioner, his total ownership in khasra No,160 was 2 kanals 3 marlas.
He has been claiming on the basis of his hissadari possession which amounted to 20 kanals 8 marlas. I am afraid hissadari possession is no basis for apportionment of wandas in Consolidation.
The original Scheme gave him more land than he was entitled to in this particular khasra number.
The Collector (Cons.) was even more bounteous to him. It is fortunate for him that nobody has challenged that decision. Since Consolidation I proceedings have to administer justice primarily keeping in view the wishes of the parties, rather than on some abstract principle of justice, I think the Additional Commissioner was absolutely wrong in law to become a spokesman for the respondents or any other party who was not present in his Court.
7. To sum up, since the decision of the Collector dated 6-10-1985 was not challenged by any party, and since the claim of the petitioner had been more than satisfied in the khasra number in dispute here, I order that the decision of the Collector (Cons.) shall remain operative.