' UBAID RUBBANI QURESHI, MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION).--- This revision petition has been filed under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 against the order dated 7-5-2008 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Jhang whereby the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) made changes into the wanda of the parties.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the ConsolidatiOn Scheme of Mouza Marri Shah Sagheera was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 21-12-2001. The respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Jhang with the delay of two years, two months and twenty days i.e. On 7-12-2004 who dismissed the same on 18-5-2005. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed an appeal before Executive District Officer (Revenue) Jhang, which was also dismissed on 29-6-2005. Aggrieved by these orders, the respondent filed a Revision Petition before the learned Member Judicial, Board of Revenue who accepted the same and remanded the matter back to the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Jhang for fresh decision vide order dated 10-3- 2007. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) accepted the appeal of the respondents and made some amendments into the wandas of the parties. The order of the Executive District Officer (Revenue); Jhang has been assailed through the instant Revision Petition.
3. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. Mr. Muhammad Irshad Chaudhary, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner in his written as well as oral arguments, submitted following assertions:---
(i) That in earlier round of litigation the Learned Member Judicial remanded the case to the EDO(R)
Jhang with the direction to give definite finding on each and every issue raised before him, but through the impugned order the EDO(R) has failed to undertake such an exercise.
(ii) That the EDO(R) while making amendment in the holdings did not advance any reason, but has merely held that the respondent has been given lesser area than that of his entitlement.
(iii) That the order passed by EDO(R) is a sketchy one and the same is an ex parte order, findings, does not cover pros and cons arguments, and is passed in absentia.
(iv) That the petitioner is a very influential person and he wants to keep the khata mushtarka. The respondents are legally entitled to get the land partitioned. It is necessary as the respondents cannot make investment in land which may go to the other party in the partition proceedings in future. The petitioner want to take Killas Nos.2 and 3/2 of Square No,93, whereas these have been given to the respondents, because of Khangi Taqseem and the petitioner has not challenged the document-relating to Khangi Taqseem in any court of law. It has been argued that the delay cannot be condoned the petitioner has signed Register Scheme or the document relating to Kha- ngi Taqseem.
(v) That the Executive, District Officer (Revenue) while passing the impugned order did not bother to see the record. The petitioner was in possession of the land measuring 6 Kanals, 13 Marlas in Killa No,2/2, Square No,93., where the petitioner has constructed his residences. The EDO (R) in order to please the respondents even proceeded to give that part of land where the petitioners have the residences. Such an exercise is against the spirit of natural justice and settled principles of law.
(vi) That the petitioner has been given the land in Killa No,7, which is away from the petitioner's other land and putting a landowner into bifurcated pieces of land is against the objectives of the consolidation. The learned EDO (R) while passing the impugned order, did not consider the same.
(vii) That the oral and documentary evidence and material on record, fully goes in favour of the petitioner, and as such, the titled petition may be accepted.
' It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition may be accepted and set aside the impugned order of the EDO(R) Jhang to meet the ends of justice.
4. Malik Sir Buland Advocate, counsel for the respondent No,1 in his written arguments has stated the following submissions:---
(i) That prior to consolidation, khata of the answering respondent as well as the petitioner was joint and there was no reason to separate the khata of the parties and even, if it was necessary to be partitioned, that too, the land is to be distributed on equal basis. There is no regular partition of the land between the parties and the alleged document of Khangi Taqseem is a forged and fabricated document prepared only to deprive the answering respondent from his valuable land and according to the Revenue Record, neither there is Tubewell nor constructed houses on the disputed land.
(ii) That the answering respondent owned and possessed land situated in Square Nos.93, Killas Nos.2/2 and 3/2 land measuring 6 Kanals, 4 Marlas which is situated on Pacca Road, has been given to the petitioner and the answering respondent has not been given even an inch of land at the road side. That the petitioner in collusion with consolidation field staff have succeeded to grab the valuable piece of land of the answering respondent, for which, they are not entitled at all. In Revenue Record, prior to consolidation proceedings uptill today the answering respondent is in possession of the above mentioned land situated at the road.
(iii) That the delay in filing the appeal before .The learned DDO(C) was due to reasons that the confirmation of consolidation scheme was kept secret from the answering respondent and Parcha Ishtimal was also not given to the answering respondent, as such the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(iv) That even if it was necessary to partition the land, then land of Awal, Doim and Soim was to be distributed as per entitlement of the parties but in the instant case, most of the Darja Soim land has been given to the answering respondent instead of Awal. Not only this but the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4 have also been given, more land than that of their entitlement, which is also against the norms of justice and equity and also against the principles of consolidation.
' It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent No,3 that the order passed by the EDO (R), dated 7-5-2008 may kindly be kept intact in original position and the revision petition in hand may kindly be dismissed with cost.
5. I have gone through the petition of Syed Zil-e-Kafl Abbas Shah presented through his counsel Mr. Muhammad Irshad Chaudhary, written arguments presented by him, written arguments of the respondent through his counsel Malik Sir Buland, order of EDO (R) Jhang dated 7-5-2008, order of my learned predecessor dated 10-3-2007. The concluding para of the order of my learned predecessor reads as under:--- "I have gone through the impugned orders, the documents placed on record and the written arguments filed by the parties. The Executive District Officer (Revenue) should have given definite findings on each issue, raised before him. He should have also verified the correctness of the contents of the last paragraph of the order dated 18-5-2005 of the Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Jhang."
6. Perusal of the order of EDO (R), Jhang also reveals that he has confined himself upto the exchange of land only and did not discuss merits/demerits of this exchange and the arguments advanced by the counsels of both the parties. I have gone through the record and site map prepared by the patwari halqa which correspond to the order of DDO(C). The order of the DDO (Consolidation) is upheld and the order of EDO (R) is not maintainable as against the spirit of consolidation and is set aside.