1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore, dated 26-2-2003 whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of village Niaz Beg, Tehsil and District Lahore was confirmed by the C.O. On 29-9-1977 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Azeem-ud-Din predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.1-A to 1-E and Inayat Bibi respondent No,2 were owner in that village. They sold land measuring 10 Kanals out of Khasra Nos.327, 332 to Muhammad Asif through registered Sale-Deed No,9785, dated 7-4-1975 which was implemented through Mutation No,7068, 7069, dated 3-11-1979. But during the consolidation, the Wanda was framed in the name of Azeem-ud-Din and Inayat Bibi. The Khasra No,327 and 332 where converted into 8015/2, 8038, 8062. At a later stage, Muhammad Asif sold 2 Kanals land to Malik Ghias-ud-Din vide registered Sale-Deed No,13792, dated 17-5-1975 and its Mutation No,7070 was sanctioned on 3-11-1979. According to the report dated 28-12-1981 submitted by C.O. Niaz Beg, Azeem-ud-Din and Muhammad Siddique were shov3n as vendor and vendee in Scheme No,1699/2 but in the Khatuni Pemaish No,1860, the name of Azeem-udDin was entered as owner. Therefore, it was suggested that Mutation No,7070, dated 3-11-1979 was liable to be reviewed for the reason that the said Khasra number had already been sold. Thus, the Collector (Cons.), Lahore accorded permission to review the said mutation which was, later on, implemented on 2-1- 1982 and the mutation was cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, Malik Ghias-ud-Din preferred an appeal in the Court of Collector (Consolidation), Lahore who remanded the case to C.O. Thus, the C.O. Sanctioned the said mutation on 6-1-1986 in favour of Malik Ghias-ud-Din. However, the present petitioner was given Khasra No,8015-min measuring 2 Kanals, 8038-min measuring 2 Kanals total 4 Kanals.
3. Thereafter, Faiz Mohy-ud-Din predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.l-A to 1-E submitted an application stating that Malik Ghias-ud-Din actually purchased 2 Kanals land but he got sanctioned Mutation No,7070 for 4 Kanals. Keeping in view the said position, the Collector (Cons.), Lahore, once again, allowed the review of the said mutation on 23-4-1988. Thus, the C.O.
Sanctioned the mutation and the present petitioner was allotted Khasra No,8375/2-min (2 Kanals) being available for allotment as a result of suo motu order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore implemented on 26-10-1987 vide Mutation No,26778. Aggrieved by the said order, present petitioner filed a Writ Petition No,3466 of 1988 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed on 16-4-2001 with the direction to approach the concerned Court. That order was impugned the Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P.L.A. No,1936/L of 2001 which was, later on, withdrawn on 5-11-2002. Afterwards, the present petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of E.D.O.(R), Lahore which was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard. Learned counsel has almost reiterated the points above. It has been contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents sold his entire land to the petitioner, therefore, he had become landless. Thus, his legal heirs had forfeited their right of appeal. He further argued that the suit-land was purchased by the petitioner prior to the initiation of consolidation proceedings and if during the consolidation proceedings the land was increased in the Wanda of predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, it should have been allotted to the present petitioner. Finally, it has been prayed that order dated 6-1-1986 passed by the C.O. May be set aside and the Mutation No,7070 may be restored. On the point of limitation, the learned counsel submitted that the delay was not intentional as the petitioner moved applications/writ petitions in various forums. He also submitted that the case in the Honourable High Court was not decided on merit. The writ petition was, in fact, dismissed on technical ground that the petitioner could not challenge the orders of the lower Court directly in the Honourable High Court before exhausting the remedies available to him. Similarly, the learned counsel submitted that the C.P.L.A. No,1936-L of 2001 was withdrawn in view of the direction of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that the petitioner should approach the concerned authorities. Finally, it has been averred that since, the C.O., had no powers to review the consolidation scheme, the order was void ab initio and any edifice built on it was bound to collapse.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Honourable High Court decided the case on merit which was against the petitioner and it was due to this reason that he went in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. The august Supreme Court passed the following order:-- "Petitioner may approach the forum concerned subject to all legal exceptions."
' In this way, the order of the Honourable High Court was upheld which was decided on merit.
Learned counsel submitted that this Court was not competent to pass any other in view of Honourable High Court which attained finality as far as the revenue Courts are concerned. He further argued that the petitioner cannot take the plea of ignorance for the purpose of condonation of delay because in the year, 1988, they had become fully aware that they were moving on the wrong track. They could have very easily withdrawn the writ petition and approached the concerned authorities. Knocking the doors of the revenue Courts after the lapse of 13 years was unjustified and against the specific provisions of law.
6. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Honourable High Court's order does not operate as a bar to the hearing of this case. In any case, learned counsel submitted that the land which has been given to the respondents was not in their ownership.
7. I have very carefully heard the arguments and perused the record. It has been rightly observed by the learned lower Court that the order of the Collector (Cons.) was appealable before the learned Commissioner which was not done and thus, -the remedy available to the petitioner was not availed. Even otherwise, the order of the Honourable High Court is very specific and I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that this Court is bound to follow the observations of the Honourable High Court. It was held that the respondents were not landless and after the sale of 40 Kanals .To Muhammad Asif, they were still left with some land. It was specifically mentioned in the said judgment that "but the fact remains that the sale in favour of Muhammad Arif himself was mutated in the Revenue Record on the basis of new Khasra numbers and only 10 Kanals of land was mutated in his name. He had sold away 8 Kanals and could not have and in fact did sell only 2 Kanals in favour of petitioner No, 1 ."
8. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the petitioner was given land according to his entitlement and a specific order has been passed by the Honourable High Court which was not upset even by the august Supreme Court and it is binding on the subordinate Courts. The petitioner has not been able to make out his case convincingly and in any way, no injustice has been done to him. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record room.