These three Review Petitions have been filed against order dated 4.8.2004 of Member (Consolidation) whereby he dismissed four revision petitions filed in his Court and upheld the order of Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) Gujranwala, This order shall dispose of all these three petitions since subject matter in them is identical.
2. Counsel for petitioners (Shamas Din etc) argued that order dated 4.8.2004 of Member (Consolidation) has been passed arbitrarily without consulting record, "WATTA" documents available on record have been misinterpreted by the Member, a delay 13 years have been unlawfully condoned vide impugned order, petitioners are owners of disputed land since 1986 and on this basis it was prayed that order dated 4.8.2004, 25.10.2000 and 9.9.2000 may be set aside.
3. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that deficiency in their allocation had been admitted by the Honourable Courts, despite interpolation in the Register Scheme no heed has been paid to it by the Court, although limitation has been condoned on ground of fraud yet no attempt has been made to make good the deficiency, no defect has been pointed out in the order passed by the Collector and on this basis it was therefore prayed that the Revision Petition may be accepted while reviewing order dated 4.8.2004 of Member (Consolidation) and setting aside orders of Addl.
Commissioner dated 25.10.2000 and 9.9.2000.
4. The case pertains to Consolidation Scheme of village Thathal Kharou Muthmal, Tehsil Pindi Bhatian, District Hafizabad confirmed by the CO on 30.6.1986. Contention of Shamas Din etc. is that possessions had been delivered to them and they had put in labour/expense and there is therefore no justification for amendments at this belated stage. They also argued that there was no ground for condonation of delay of 13 years which has not been explained. They also argued that the land was allotted to them on the basis of a compromise and they have installed a tubewell therein.
Abbas Ali is aggrieved of resolution in respect of wanda Nos.110 and 113 passed in the presence of members of Advisory Committee. Zainab Bibi and Abbas Ali etc argue that their entitlement after converting into category A came to 50 kanals 6 marlas but during the Consolidation proceedings through interpolations this category. A land was reduced to 44 kanals 1 marla. A deficiency was caused therefore of 2 kanals 4 marlas which has to be made good in their entitlement. Entitlement of Abbas Ali has similarly been reduced as claimed by him to the extent of 15 kanals 9 marlas.
5. In all the three petitions filed before this Court it has been contended that order dated 4.8.2004 has not been correctly and lawfully passed. The WATTA" documents available on record have not been considered in the impugned order despite the fact that those were signed by the respondents in presence of members Advisory Committee. Another important fact which has been brought to light is that a delay of 13 years was condoned on the basis of fraud which was in itself sufficient for dismissal of the case of the respondents. The fact that petitioners have become owners of disputed land since 1986, has been disregarded vide impugned order. Respondents on the other hand argue that although the delay was condoned on the basis of alleged fraud their deficiency which was caused by this alleged fraud was not made good. The detailed contentions of respondents have been mentioned before which need to be looked into. The order dated 4.8.2004 of Member (Consolidation) in response to the arguments of parties merely mentions that Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) made an equitable distribution. No attempt has been made vide impugned order to examine the arguments of parties and to either accept or review them on legal/factual ground.
Parties have to be granted/restored their legal rights to the fullest extent of the law and as per impugned order it is not sufficient to dismiss their legal chaim merely by saying that partial reliefs have been provided to them. All these three case are therefore being remanded to EDO (R)
Hafizabad with the direction to decide them afresh on the basis of perusal of record and hearing of parties.
Note: This order consists of three signed pages.