Consolidation Scheme of the revenue estate of Dahnnot, Tehsil Kahror Pacca, District Lodhran, was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Lodhran, on 13.1.1986. The petitioner filed two appeals against the said Scheme. The grievance made out was that Khasra No, 218/20 was exclusively owned by the petitioner prior to the consolidation but two kanals out of the said Khasra number has been given to Respondent No,
2. He accordingly prayed that the said area of two kanals which has been allotted Khasra No, 218/20 (Min North) be placed in his Wanda. In the appeal filed against all the holders of the Wanda, in was prayed that Muhammad Tayyub Respondent No, 2 be placed in Scheme No, 2855 and his name be removed therefrom. The precise prayer was that his entitlement in Scheme No, 2855 be given, to respondent No, 2 in lieu of the said two 'kanals described above. A Collector (Consolidation) heard both the appeals together and vide order dated 29.12.1986 proceeded to observed that the said Khasra No, 218/20 was the property of the petitioner and is to be taken away from the Respondent No, 2 and to be given to him and as against that the respondent be given one kanal 11 marla in Khasras No, 208/15/2 and 208/16/1 while the remaining 9 marlas be taken from one Muhammad Iqbal Baig of Scheme No, 2855 and given to the Respondent No,
2. The Respondent No, 2. filed two revision petitions against the said order .of the Collector. These, were heard by an Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, who proceeded to dismiss both the revisions on 20.5.1989. He observed that the petitioner was the owner of the said two kana/s of land while Khasra No, 241/6/2 was owned by respondent No,
2. He got it allotted to Muhammad Sharif Respondent No, 3 and he was given Khasra No, 218/20/2.
Thereafter, he observed that Khasra No, 218/20/2 has rightly been given to the petitioner while the Respondent No, 2 is not even entitled to get back his said land in Khasra No, 241/6/2.
2. Respondent No, 2 then filed a revision which was heard by Respondent ND.
1. He allowed the revision petition and restored the original scheme vide order dated 28.3.1995.
3.I may note here that the writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.6.2002.
The petitioner filed C.P. No, 2892-L/02. Vide order dated 11.3.2003, with consent of the parties which was controverted into an appeal and allowed resulting in setting aside of the said judgment dated 26.6.2002 and the case was remitted back for fresh decision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the original owner of Khasra No, 20 of Sq. No, 218 and it was wrongly taken away from him in the Consolidation Scheme and was correctly restored to him by the Collector and the. Commissioner agreed. He also presses C.M. No, 442/05 where he has proposed that two kanals of land . located at Northern side of Khasra No, 25 of Sq. No, 218 be given to the Respondent No, 2 in lieu .of the land given to- him by the Collector.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No, 2 contends that the Scheme was 'approved with the consent of the petitioner as well as his brother who were owners of Khasra No, 20 and the Wandas were made accordingly and that the learned Respondent No, 1 has taken a correct view of the matter. Learned counsel for the Respondent No, 3 contends that he was not made a party to the original appeal but was impleaded in. the revision and that the 'allotment to his client of Khasra No, 6/2/1 in Sq: No, 241 is undisputed and he cannot he made to part with it and in any case the land has since been transferred several times.
5. I have gone through the copies of the several documents appended with this writ petition. Now I find that Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1978-79 (Annex: 'A') reflects the pre-consolidation holding of Muhammad Tahir Baig petitioner and his brother Muhammad Zahir Baig sons of Muhammad Athar Baig. Now according to this document, Khasra No, 20 of sq. No, 218 measuring 8 kanals was owned by the two brothers in equal shares. Now the copy of the confirmed Scheme is Annex: 'B'. Now I find that, in the first instance, Muhammad Asgliar Baig the attorney of petitioner signed the said Scheme. It is also signed by his brother Muhammad Athar Baig and then it is signed by Muhammad Tahir Baig petitioner himself. There is no denial that the Register Scheme was not so singed after recording of the proposals. Now I further find that out of the said Khasra No, 20 of Sq. No, 218 three kanals and 8 marlas were allocated to Muhammad Tahir Baig petitioner. Now this means that out of his total entitlement in the said Khasra Number, of four kanals, he was allotted three kanals 8 marlas in the said. Khasra number. The admitted position is that two kanals of land from this Khasra number which was allocated Khasra No, 218/2/2 (Min North) was given to Muhammad Tayyab Respondent No,
2. It is matter of record that the owner of remaining four kanals i,e, Muhammad Zahir Baig the brother of the petitioner has not questioned the said Scheme.
6. Now the question arises as to how the petitioner can claim two kanals of land when he had akeady been allocated three kanals 8 marlas leaving only a balance of 12 marlas of his original entitlement, It is but obvious that . neither the Collector nor the Addl. Commissioner cared to examine the records. Both of them have passed their respective orders on the assumption that the petitioner is the original owner of the said two kanals of land. It is further apparent that the said Collector and the Commissioner did not even care to read the Scheme whereunder three kanals 8 marlas from Khasra No, 20 had already been given to the petitioner. Now the effect of the orders of the Collector and the Addl. Commissioner was that as against original entitlement of fotir kanals, the petitioner was sought to be given 5 kanals and 8 marlas of land in Khasra No, 20.
7. Now there is no objection that the Scheme confirmed obviously with the consent of the petitioner as also his co-sharer i,e, his brother Muhammad Zahir Baig does not cause any reduction in his over all pre-consolidation holding.
8. I also find that no effort was made to demonstrate throughout this long litigation as to whom the remaining two kanals and 12 marlas out of the former Khasra No, 20 in Sc. No, 218 was given.
9. Now while the collector and the Commissioner proceeded on a wrongful assumption that the said two kanals was the original ownership of the petitioner. The learned Member (Consolidation) took a correct view of the matter. The Collector and the Commissioner have gone miles out of their way to undo the Scheme confirmed by consent of all concerned. The implications were not at all noted by the Collector that the process involves a consequent amendment in a number of schemes. The Commissioner was aware of this fact and he got rid of the same by simply observing. that the said two kanals in Khasra No, 20 is to be given to the petitioner while the Respondent No, 2 is not at all entitled to any land. This is a Wholly unjust order and has rightly been set aside by the Respondent No,
1. He has also considered the consequences of undoing the Scheme and has very rightly observed that the order passed by the Collector on the appeal of the petitioner could not at all be implemented without disturbing several other schemes.
10.Having, thus, examined the records, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Respondent No, 1 on 28.3.1995 does not at all call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly when there is no allegation of reduction of entitlement vis-a-vis the original confirmed scheme and this is perhaps only recognized ground on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has held that an order of Consolidation Officer for consolidation can be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution. Even otherwise the very basis of the claim of the petition is false.
11.The writ petition accordingly is dismissed with costs.