' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.--The petitioners assail an order dated 16.07.2009 passed by respondent No,1 (Member Consolidation, Board of Revenue) through which while accepting a review petition, the said respondent has sustained a Consolidation scheme dated 30.09.2006. It is further prayed that order dated 09.03.2009 passed by the predecessor of respondent No,1 may be restored / maintained.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that in Mouza Ahmed Abad (Chorr Kot) Tehsil and District Kasur, the process of Consolidation scheme was initially confirmed by the Consolidation officer on 30.09.1980. Having found defects and irregularities in the Consolidation scheme, the member Consolidation set aside the said scheme vide order dated 09.01.1991. The said order was up held up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Consequently, the process of Consolidation was reinitiated in the afore-noted Mouza. It is alleged that even this time the classification and entitlements were not properly determined. As a consequence various persons having class 1 and class 2 quality land were awarded lower classification so that they may become entitled to more land. Persons who had Barani land were given lower classification that they could not get more land as per their ' entitlement. In this way various persons were allegedly deprived of their lawful rights in the property, while others were given undue advantage. In this manner, the entitlement of a large number of land owners was increased/decreased on the basis of wrong classification. It is further alleged that though the Consolidation scheme was reconfirmed on 30.09.2006 by the Consolidation officer, during the Consolidation process, earlier irregularities were not rectified and continued to exist. It is the case of the petitioners that despite confirmation of Consolidation Scheme on 30.09.2006, Parcha Zimedara and Parcha Khatooni were not distributed to the land owners or even made public till the end of 2008. It is stated that this was intentionally done to keep the matter secret and to prevent the petitioners from availing their remedies before the competent for a. Apprehending wrong doing on the part of the departmental functionaries, the petitioners filed a request for issuance of Parcha Zimedaran. The request was initially refused, however on the intervention of the Senior Member Board of Revenue, the document in question was made available to the petitioners. On receiving the said documents, it transpired that the classification process for allocation of land during the process of Consolidation had not been followed. The process of allocation of land as per its qualification was misused to extend favours to undeserving right holders. Shamlat Deh land which was supposed to be distributed amongst right holders in proportion to their ownership/possession, was distributed in disregard of entitlement and favours were extended by the Consolidation staff to well connected land owners. Further, a large number of right holders were allocated land in excess of their previous ownership/possession without any lawful justification and they were unduly benefitted. Likewise, the holding of the petitioners and a number of other land owners was unduly reduced compared to their previous ownership/possession.
3. It is pointed out that about 30 appeals were filed individually for redressal of individual grievances. However, the irregularities were of such a nature that individual appeals would not serve the purpose. Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition before Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue Punjab praying for annulment of the Consolidation scheme.
4. The Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue accepted the petition submitted by the petitioners and Consolidation scheme was annulled under Section 13(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 vide order dated 09.03.2009. Respondent Nos. 6 to 14 filed a review petition against the order of the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue. The same was accepted vide order dated 16.07.2009 by setting aside the earlier order of the Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue dated 09.03.2009. The petitioners are aggrieved of the said order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2009 is illegal, against the facts and contrary to settled principals of law laid down by the superior courts.
He submits that the power of review was not available to the Member Consolidation under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. He argues that excess land has been allotted to favourites and the principles of classification of land were not kept in mind. He maintains that respondent No,1 has failed to consider that the consolidation process was commenced on the basis of Jama Bandi for the scheme confirmed on 1980. A large number of changes that had occurred during the intervening period were not entered in the aforementioned Jama Bandi, therefore, the consolidation process was defective from the very beginning. Similarly, register Haq Daran-e-Zameen on the basis of which consolidation process was initiated, had not been updated and a large number of transactions which had taken place, had not been entered in the said document. Owing to this a number of land owners who had transferred their holdings and were no longer owners were wrongly allotted lands. He points out that respondent No,1 also ignored the fact that ownership of some of the land owners was decreased by more than 20 Kanals whereas a decrease of entitlement cannot be in excess of 10 Marlas. He further submits that classification of land, was wrongly made in as much as the petitioners previously owned Barani land or class 1 quality land who were given lesser quality land without following the procedure provided in the consolidation manuals. He submits that respondent No,1 has over looked the fact that a number of right holders were allocated land which was less then their entitlement. He submits that the purpose of consolidation is to integrate scattered holdings of land owners in the shape of compact blocks in order to facilitate irrigation/cultivation but these principles of consolidation have been disregarded in preparing the consolidation scheme. Therefore, the consolidation scheme could not have been sustained. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. During the course of hearing of this petition, C.M. Nos. 2989 and 2990 of 2010 were moved on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the writ petitioners, had alienated whole or part of their holdings or had mortgaged their lands and had made other transactions related thereto.
Reports of Revenue functionaries placed on the record also indicate that an overwhelming majority of land owners running into thousands have accepted the consolidation scheme and acted upon it. The record also indicates that on the basis of consolidation hundreds of transactions including sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, inheritance etc. Have taken place. It was stated that such land owners (including the petitioners) had thus lost their locus standi to file the present writ petition.
Copies of various mutations were also placed on record. The Revenue Functionaries also reported that out of a large numbers of land owners which comes to about 5435, only 9 persons had agitated the matter, who had vested interest in getting the matter delayed indefinitely. It has further been pointed out that the petitioners have not mentioned anything in the petition regarding their personal grievances nor has any proof been placed on record that their entitlement has been reduced. They have not been deprived of their ownership which is evident from the chart (available on record) showing their pre and post consolidation entitlement. It is further submitted that some of the petitioners are in occupation of land which is more than their entitlement. It is only to linger on their illegal possession, that they have filed the instant petition in order to reap the benefits of their illegal occupation.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that while thousands land owners want, to maintain the consolidation scheme dated 30.09.2006, the petitioners who are only 09 in number want to undo the entire exercise for the ulterior motive of retaining ill gotten gains. Now the land owners who were put in possession pursuant to confirmation of the scheme dated 30.09.2006 have developed the land through undertaking improvements at considerable cost, installed tube-wells and turbines and made huge investment in consequence of which nature of land has changed altogether. The consolidation was already complete and Misl-e-Haqiqat is also complete. By creating hurdles in completion of the process, the petitioners are making an effort to nullify the entire process. He submits that if any order is passed for annulment of the scheme, the same would cause irreparable loss and injury to thousands of land owners and would result in another prolonged round of litigation which is likely to span over decades and involve generations of land owners in pointless and fruitless litigation. It is finally argued that the Member Consolidation had the power of review in terms of Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act 1957.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.
9. It appears that village Ahmed Abad (Chor Kot) has been subject matter of consolidation for decades. Despite lapse of more than 40 years, proceedings in the matter are still pending before different fora. Needless to add that pendency of such proceedings is causing hardship, wastage of time and unnecessary expense for the land owners. The record indicates that the area under litigation at different legal fora pursuant to conformation of the Scheme for Consolidation constitutes about 5% of the total holdings of the area. The number of appeals against these schemes is negligible and only a small number of land owners out of total of 5435 are agitating this matter. The petitioners have not identified or specified the owners whose entitlement has allegedly been reduced unjustifiably or unlawfully beyond permitted limits. On the contrary, the record indicates that in limited number of cases where entitlement has been reduced, the same has been reduced by less then 10 Marlas which is permissible in consolidation matters, and is very much within the rules and regulations allowing deficiency or surplus of the entitlement of land holders which would be taken to be within the allocation permissible under the scheme of consolidation. Reliance is placed on Manzoor Hussain and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2006 SCM R 951). I have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out specific instances where the deficiency was beyond permissible limits. He has not been able to specify any such land owners or the land holdings (including that of the petitioners) where such reduction has taken place. In addition, not a single document from the A record has been, pointed out that may support the allegation of the petitioners.
10. A perusal of the record also indicates that the classification of land of the revenue estate village Ahmed Abad (Chorr Kot) under consolidation was carried out under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960 and Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1998. The same has been accepted by the advisory counsel on the classification of land. Consequently there was no ground or lawful basis to disturb distribution of land on the basis of categorization / classification. Further various reports of concerned revenue functionaries placed on record show that there was no serious objection regarding wrong / erroneous classification made at any stage. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not substantiated by any material on record.
11. As far as the question of Shamlat Deh is concerned, the petitioners have not specified any right holder or area nor has any document been referred to in support of their allegation that Shamlat Deh has been wrongly allocated to the land holders who were not entitled to such allotment.
Therefore, I do not find any substance in the argument that Shamlat Deh has wrongly been distributed.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to a report issued by the Circle Patwari indicating that 80% of the holders have accepted the new consolidation scheme dated 30.09.2006, which has duly been acted upon for all intents and purposes. The report of Qannoongo, Head Collector and EDO (R) Kasur also support this version. These figures categorically show that an overwhelming majority of land owners have accepted the consolidation scheme and acted accordingly without any substantial greivance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a large number of land owners who had transferred their holdings and had ceased to be owners were wrongly allotted land in the said consolidation scheme. He has, however, not been able to point out any document that may substantiate the said assertion. Further the record indicates that no complaint about pending mutations and transactions of land which have not been correctly reflected in the record of rights of the relevant period is pending before the competent authorities. As such, I do not find any merit in the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a number of complaints about pending mutations and transactions are lying before the competent authorities. This assertion runs contrary to the record.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn my attention to a report submitted by the DDO (Consolidation) which reflects that a group of land owners have encroached upon private lands including Shamlat Deh in the village. Further they are holding land, which is more than their entitlement. They have a vested interest in misusing and abusing judicial processes and proceedings to delay finalization of the consolidation scheme. It is these land holders who are agitating the matter from time to time before different fora.
14. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners seek to agitate their grievance against allocation of land in consolidation proceedings. The main focus of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners has also been such grievances. It may be noted that it has been the consistant view of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for agitating grievances against allocation of land in consolidation proceedings. Reliance is placed on Asad Riaz v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (1997 SCM R 1611), Muzaffar Ali V. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 94), Umar Din and others v.
Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others (1984 CLC 17), Allah Rehman and others v. Amtul Qayyum and another (1989 SCM R 1817), Ghulam Qadir v. Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (1970 SCM R 292), Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 139), Amir Din etc.v. Muhammad Malik etc. (1981 SCM R 834), Falak Sher v.
Sharif and others (1989 SCM R 1096).
15. The argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that power of review is not available to Member Consolidation, is misconceived. It has been held that the power of review though not existing in provisions of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the Board of Revenue was competent to review its orders at the instance of an aggrieved person in matters relating to consolidation proceedings. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to Muhammad Shafi v. The Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue and 2 others (1995 CLC 966) where this Court has held as follows:- "Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 in its sections 11 and 13 expressly conferred right of appeal and revision. Review was conspicuous by its absence in it. Right of review like a right of appeal and revision was a substantive right and was not available unless it was expressly conferred in Statute. Case of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1981 SC 94) was in point.
Section 8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 gave jurisdiction to the Board of Revenue to review its order upon application filed by an aggrieved person. Suo motu review by the Board was not countenanced by the Act. In Umar Din and others v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and others (1984 CLC 17 (Lahore), this view of section 8 was taken by this Court. There was no dispute that in absence of a specific provision existing for review in the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the Board of Revenue under section 8 of the West Pakistan, Board of Revenue Act, 1957 was competent to review its order at the instance of an aggrieved person."
16. Therefore, I find the Member Consolidation, Board of Revenue has correctly relied upon the said power on a review petition filed before him in passing the impugned order dated 16.07.2009. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to sou motu exercise of power of review under Section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act and are therefore irrelevant and not applicable to the instant case.
17. As far as the legality of the order dated 09.03.2009 passa by the predecessor of respondent No,1 is concerned, it can be looked at from another angle. It is by now settled that where a consolidation scheme is being scrutinized or has been scrutinized on the judicial side, it cannot be interfered with on the administrative side. It is clear from the record that when the order dated 09.03.2009 was passed by the predecessor of respondent No,1 at least 30 appeals on the judicial side were also pending before the Member Consolidation, Board of Revenue. Consequently, no order could have been passed by the Member Consolidation on the executive side relating to the consolidation scheme. If there were any individual grievances, the same could have been addressed on the judicial side. In holding this view, I am fortified by the law laid down in a judgment reported as Chuttan and others v. Sufaid Khan and others 1987 SCM R 503.
18. It is also evident from the record that the order dated 09.03.2009 was procured by moving an application in the open Katchery of the Chief Minister Punjab, who issued a direction to the Member Consolidation, Board of Revenue The Superior Courts have repeatedly held that neither the Chief Minister nor the Revenue Minister have any role to play in matters of consolidation. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ahmed Khan v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1070).
19. It may also be kept in mind that on a report called by this Court from the Halqa Patwari, it transpired that out of the 09 persons, who had agitated the matter, at least half had already sold their land holding and did not have any right, title or interest in the area under consolidation. The said report has not specifically been contested by the petitioners. In these circumstances, where some of the petitioners have alienated their properties, they have no locus standi to challenge the consolidation proceedings. Reliance is placed on Abdul Ghani v. Abdul Farooq etc. 1993 M LD 1643 and Khushi Muhammad v. The Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and 3 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 829).
20. A very significant aspect of the matter is that there are about 5435 land owners, who are affected by the consolidation proceedings. Admittedly, they were not heard by the Member (Consolidation) while passing the order dated 09.03.2009. The consolidation scheme, which already stood approved and acted upon, was cancelled behind their back in a hurried and slipshod manner. The Superior Courts have held that the entire body of affected land owners should be summoned in any matter involving a consolidation scheme, which is sought to be annulled. There is nothing on record nor has the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to any document that may indicate that notices were issued/ served on the entire body of affected land owners. It is clear and obvious that the order in question was passed without hearing them. The fact alone constituted sufficient basis for review and to hold that the .Order dated 09.03.2009 was not sustainable.
21. The record indicates that entitlement certificates have been issued and the entire record has been returned to the department. Consequently, the consolidation department has become functus officio. There is neither lawful reason, nor justification to recommence the entire exercise, which has taken decades to conclude. In this regard reliance is placed on Khushi Muhammad v.
The Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and 3 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 829), Muhammad Din and 3 others v. The State etc. (PLD 1982 Revenue 2), Mir Ali and 8 others v. K.B. Dil Aram Khan (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others (1992 SCM R 1), Abdul Ghani v. Abdul Farooq, etc. (1993 M LD 1643) and Allah Jawaya v. Muhammad Sharif and others (PLD 1987 Revenue 29).
22. It appears that only a few land holders of the village have agitated against the allocation of land made against them in the said scheme out of a total of 5435 owners of the land. This shows that an over whelming majority of the land owners have accepted the same. Therefore, the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue in his order dated 16.07.2009 was justified in holding that the limited number of objections do not justify dismantling the entire work of consolidation undertaken over decades and once again throw the entire village in the quagmire of litigation and consolidation proceedings. Further the small number of "Aggrieved Persons" cannot be given a veto power and a right to challenge and nullify work done to the satisfaction of more than 80% of the land holders of the village: In addition, the aggrieved persons who are small in number would not be non-suited. They would always have the right to approach the concerned revenue courts and other judicial fora to get remedies for their individual grievances (if any).
23. It is also noted that vide order dated 28.03.2012, the Deputy District Officer (Consolidation) Kasur, the Consolidation Officer Kasur and Halqa Patwari Mouza Ahmed Abad (Chor Kot) were directed to comment upon the alleged allocation of land to the land owners mentioned in the list given at page 82 of the petition. The said respondents were also directed to report whether any of the petitioners accepted and acted upon the consolidation by alienating or otherwise mortgaging their newly acquired Wanda. They were also directed to state whether any of the persons mentioned in the list attached at pages 69 to 81 of the petition have disputed the scheme. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28.03.2012, a report has been filed which indicates that only a limited number of persons have challenged the consolidation scheme. Majority of land holders never challenged the consolidation scheme before any forum and have accepted the same. It has also been reported that on the basis of the consolidation scheme Misl-e-Haqiqat regarding the Mouza has also been completed and the record has been sent to the record room. After expiry of more than two decades, most residents of the village have accepted the consolidation scheme.
24. I have carefully gone through the reports and find that at this stage on the basis of objections raised by a few persons, whose bona fides and clean hands in approaching this Court are, at best, open to question, cancellation of the consolidation scheme would lead to multiple legal complications in addition to loss and damage to the majority of land holders of the village, which in my humble opinion would not in any manner serve the cause of justice. Further, there is no lawful reason or justification' warranting such cancellation. It would, therefore, be appropriate that the few persons who have grievances may avail their remedies through the appropriate judicial for a without disturbing the consolidation scheme as a whole which was confirmed as far back as on 30.09.2006. When confronted with the afore-noted, report dated 28.03.2012, the .Learned counsel for the petitioner has half heartedly attempted to argue that the report is motivated and does not reflect the situation on ground. I am afraid the said argument does not carry weight in the absence of any material available on record to substantiate the assertions of the petitioner.
25. I have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find them to be irrelevant; the observations made therein are qualified by facts and have no relevance or applicability to the issue germane to this case. Finally the petitioners have approached this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction which is equitable and discretionary in nature. I am not convinced that the petitioners have approached this Court bona fide and with clean hands. Even otherwise, as noted above, ,grievances regarding allocation of land in consolidation proceedings cannot ordinarily be agitated before this Court in its jurisdiction. No extraordinary circumstances have been demonstrated before this Court that may warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, I am not persuaded to hold that the petitioners are entitled, to the discretionary and equitable relief that they seek in this case in the facts and circumstances of this case.
26. For reasons recorded above, I find that the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by respondent No,1 requires no interference by this Court and the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
27. This petition is accordingly dismissed.