KHAN MUHAMMAD And Others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION) BOARD OF REVENUE,PUNJAB And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from consolidation proceedings where the petitioners challenged the redistribution of their land, specifically the allocation of 27 Kanals of their land to respondents in exchange for 18 Kanals. The petitioners had initially filed appeals against the consolidation scheme, which were dismissed due to procedural defaults and limitation issues, as the affected parties were not timely impleaded. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition in limine, noting that the petitioners had received more land in higher quality classes than their actual entitlement. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the consolidation authorities erred in their allotment and whether the High Court's dismissal was justified. The Court held that the consolidation authorities acted correctly, as the petitioners were adequately accommodated and received land exceeding their entitlement in superior classes. The Court affirmed the principle that consolidation proceedings do not guarantee the retention of specific original plots, as the primary objective is the efficient reorganization of holdings, provided the landowner's overall entitlement is respected and adjusted according to land quality.
- Does the law of consolidation guarantee that a landowner will retain their original specific plots of land?
- Can a consolidation authority adjust the area of land allotted to a landowner based on the quality of the land?
- Is a consolidation scheme valid if it accommodates a landowner with more area in higher quality classes than their original entitlement?
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J. ---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 31-7-1995 passed in Writ Petition No.17475 dismissing the same in limine.
2. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were the owners of land, approximately measuring 2079 Kanals in the revenue estate Chitror, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha. During the consolidation proceedings, in pursuance of the consolidation scheme approved on 30-5-1991, the petitioners were mostly adjusted on the land which they previously owned and possessed on 9-9-1991 excepting a piece of land measuring 27 Kanals comprised of Killas Nos.24, 25, 27 of Square No.50 which was given to respondents Nos.6 to 12 in lieu of land measuring 18 Kanals comprised of Killas Nos .23/1, 24, 25 of Square No.29. Petitioners feeling aggrieved with the carving out of a road from the petitioners' land and also of they having been deprived of 27 Kanals of their land referred to above filed to appeals. The petitioners' appeal regarding carving out of the road was dismissed as withdrawn as well as for default. The petitioners then filed another appeal challenging the allotment of their 27 Kanals of land to the respondents as stated above. In this appeal they did not implead those to whom this 27 Kanals of land had been given/adjusted at the the of consolidation. However, they (respondents Nos.6 to 12) were impleaded at the the when the period of limitation for filing an appeal against such allotment had already expired. The learned Collector, therefore, dismissed their appeal on 16-2-1992. Their revision petition against the order was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 6-6-1992.
Similar was the fate of their further revision filed before the Board of Revenue. The aforementioned orders were challenged in the Constitution petition stated above before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed in limine.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at great length we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court. The learned High Court in para. 4 of the judgment, which is relevant in the context of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, held as follows:----- "The learned Member further observed that the petitioners have been changing the stand and that forgery was committed by them. He found that 'the petitioners' entitlement in Class-1 land was 1155 Kanals whereas he has now been given 1258 Kanals. Against his entitlement of 147 Kanals of Class- 2 land, he has been allocated 216 Kanals. As against his entitlement of 776 Kanals of Class-4 land, he has been given only 597 Kanals. As against his previous land in 8 plots, he has been now accommodated in 5 plots."
4. Admittedly in consolidation proceedings one is not expected to get his own land otherwise the very purpose of the law would be defeated. However, efforts are being made while preparing the scheme that consent of the landowners to accommodate each landowner without much disturbance in such a manner that his over-all entitlement is not disturbed. However, categorising the land and while allotting superior quality of land to a land-owner adjustment is made in accordance with the scheme prepared by allotting less area than the land which is previously held by him of are inferior quality. As referred to by the learned Member, Board of Revenue petitioner has been accommodated by allotting him much more area than his entitlement in Class-1 and Class-2 land. The learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to account for it while challenging, the allotment of, 18 Kanals in lieu of 27 Kanals of which the petitioners felt aggrieved. The Consolidation Authority, therefore, rightly did not interfere with the consolidation proceedings. Accordingly, we refuse leave to appeal and dismiss the petition.