' WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).--This revision petition has been filed against order dated 25.11.2011, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, whereby appeal of the present respondents was accepted.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that orders of learned lower courts are at variance. The petitioner was condemned unheard by learned lower court, which is against the norms of law.
During consolidation scheme, land previously owned and possessed by the petitioner was included in Scheme No,1038 of respondents Nos.1 to 20. The petitioner came to know about that fact when the respondents tried to take possession of the said land. The petitioner did not put his signature on the register of scheme, for the reason, that the petitioner was never ready to give his land to the respondents. The petitioner has been deprived of his valuable land, which is against the spirit of law on the subject. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner put his signatures on the register of scheme in token of acceptance of scheme No,998, whereby 18-kanals, 19-marlas land was given by the Consolidation Officer, Multan on 7.12.2003. Thus, the petitioner was fully aware about the inclusion of land in the wanda of respondents, but in spite of this fact, he filed appeal with a delay of about 2 years. He further contended that father of the respondent rented out land bearing khasra No,21/12/1, measuring 3-kanals and 21/20 measuring 7-kanals, 11-marlas to the petitioner due to which he claimed the said land. The respondents have planted orchard in the said land and for this reason this land was included in the wanda of respondents. Through the impugned order no illegality or irregularity has been committed. No deficiency, whatsoever, in the entitlement of parties was occurred. While concluding the arguments, it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available in the case file including the impugned orders. Brief of the matter is that consolidation scheme of Mauza Kotla Raham Ali, Tehsil Multan Saddar, District Multan was confirmed on 31.12.2003 by Consolidation Officer, Multan. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the present petitioner filed a time barred appeal before learned Deputy District Officer (Consolidation), Multan, which was accepted vide order dated 02.12.2006. This order was assailed by the present respondents before learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, through appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 25.11.2010. The operative part of the order is as under:-- "I have heard the counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The record shows that respondent No,01 had affixed his signature on his scheme No,998 in which his wanda was confirmed on 17.1.2.2003 by the Consolidation Officer Multan. The respondent No,1 was well aware of the land included in his scheme but he filed a time-barred appeal after a period of about 2 years before the lower court without mentioning any cogent reason for condonation of delay. The appellants have developed the land after considering this fact has included these khasra numbers in the wandas of respondent No,1. Moreover, neither respondent No,1 nor his counsel attended the court to defend his case which shows that he has nothing to offer any defence to prove his contention which he adopted before the lower court.
' In view of aforementioned reasons, I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order of lower court dated 02.12.2006".
6. The perusal of record produced by Consolidation Officer, Multan shows that learned Collector (Consolidation), Multan sanctioned the scheme vide order dated 02.12.2006. The respondents were allotted khasra No,47/2/3 measuring 10K-12M under such scheme and they sold out the same through Mutation No,2589, dated 29.06.2012, while pendency of instant litigation, meaning thereby that the respondents have accepted the impugned scheme through their conduct. Such act on the part of the respondents has rendered themselves ineligible for the relief they obtained through impugned order of learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan. Reliance is placed upon PLD 1992 Revenue, which reads as under:-- "Alienation of holding during pendency litigation regarding consolidation scheme without Court's permission would affect rights of the other party adversely and could influence the outcome of the case."
7. Hence, it is established that the respondents have accepted order dated 02.12.2006 by selling the specific numbers allotted to them. Hence, the revision petition is accepted and impugned order dated 25.11.2011, passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, is set aside.
8. The contempt application is disposed of being not pressed.