This is a suo mow revision case against confirmation of consolidation scheme of village Mitha Tiwana, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha.
2. Brief the facts of the case are that consolidation scheme of the said village was confirmed on 30-9-1954 by Consolidation Officer, T. D. A., under section 7 (2) of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936. An application by Ghulam Ali and Umar Hayat was received on 13-9-1956 against the consolidation scheme. A joint report dated 9-10-1956 from F. A. S. O. and C. O. was received wherein they had recommended re-consolidation to the extent of redressing genuine grievances of the land-owners.
3. Writ Petition No, 503/59, relating to the consolidation proceedings, was filed by Malik Muhmmad Akbar etc. on 14-9-1959 and was dismissed on 6-2-1964 as being clearly premature.
4. On 26-3-1965, Sultan Ali etc. filed two Revision Petitions Nos, 826/64-65 and 827/64-65 against the order dated 3-3-1965 and 24-2-1965 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha. Both the revision petitions were dismissed on 8-11-1966 by the then Member (Cons. & LU) of the Board of Revenue, We Pakistan, Lahore, as being withdrawn,
5. On 10-1-1970, on the report bearing No, 5211/Acctt/ (Cons.), dated 30-9-1967 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division, and the note dated 9-1-1970 of the A. C. 0. (H. Qrs.) Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, and in order to examine the propriety of the consolidation scheme of Mitha Tiwana, this case was admitted on suo moto side. The power of suo moto revision is available under section 24 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936, read with section 4 (1)
(e) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956.
6. In order to scrutinize the defects in the consolidation scheme, I considered it necessary to inspect the site personally and to hear the land-owners of the village. As such, spot inspection was done on 13-1-1971 after general notice was given in the village for wide publicity through field staff. The field staff along with the record was present before me in the village with a number of land-owners.
7. I inspected the following Khasra numbers in order to ascertain correct position on the spot in the presence of the landowners and the field staff:- Khasra Nos, 775/6, 767/5, 771/4, 5 and 6, and 774/4, 5, 6 and 7.
Muhammad Zaman was found in possession of Khasra Nos, 771/4, 5 and 6, and 774/4, 5, 6 and 7, which were not allotted to him during the consolidation operation.
8. I also heard a number of land-owners to ascertain the nature of objections to the consolidation scheme as also the nature of objections to a possible upsetting or revision of the scheme, at the same time making it clear to the land-owners present that the case will be decided on 14-1-1971 after a hearing on that date at Sargodha.
9. After spot inspection on 13-1-1971, the suo moto case was taken up on 14-1-1971 at Sargodha, where the parties were heard on the following three points :-- (i)Whether the consolidation scheme as confirmed by the C. O., T. D. A , on 30-9-1954, is maintainable?
(ii)Whether, if it is maintainable, it should be revised to the extent of removing the genuine grievances of land-owners?
(iii)Whether it is liable to be set aside?
10. Malik Ghulam Nabi, Advocate, has given his arguments in favour of maintenance of the consolidation scheme. According to him it would not be advisable to upset the entire consolidation scheme after a lapse of about 16 years during which the land-owners had made improvements in the land allotted to them and thus the quality of the soil was changed altogether. Some of the land-owners had disposed of the land allotted to them under the genuine impression that they were in legal possession thereof under the consolidation scheme confirmed on 30-9-1954.
According to him, minor adjustments can be made to redress the grievances of the land-owners who are not in possession of the land allotted to them. As regards double allotment of Khasra numbers the learned counsel sub-mitted that this defect can be removed by ascertaining physical possession and then making up the deficiency from the area which has remained unallotted.
11. Nazar Muhammad son of Muhammad Din has argued that the consolidation scheme is not maintainable because it is full of defects and is not in accordance with the Mode of Partition. The poor petty land-owners have been hard hit because they have been deprived of their valuable land. Moreover, there are so many cuttings and over-writings in the register scheme that many of the land-owners are not aware of the land actually allotted to them during the consolidation operation. They were also kept in the dark because their signatures/thumb-impressions were obtained on blank register scheme.
12. Malik Ghulam Nabi, Advocate, and Major Amir Khan were of the view that if at all the consolidation scheme is set aside then correction be made in such a way as to cause minimum dislocation otherwise it would lead to endless litigation. They suggested that a committee may be appointed to remove the defects after hearing the land-owners.
13. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case as appearing from the record, local inspection and arguments.
14. The position of consolidation proceedings in Mitha Tiwana is briefly as follows:-- (i)Measurement was completed.
(ii)Preliminary record was prepared, including Naqshah Haqdaran.
(iii)Scheme was confirmed.
(iv)Mutation of Ishtirak, which should have preceded confirmation of the scheme, was not sanctioned.
(v)Mutation of Partition, Khatoni Paimaish, Girdawari according to new consolidation scheme and Misl Haqiat which should have all followed after confirmation have not been done.
(vi)Some possessions were changed while other were not and a number of persons have remained out of possession all this time.
15. The confirmation of the Scheme was improper as firstly, the total area of the village to be consolidated does not tally with the area of the Scheme. There is an area of about 2423 acres which has not been accounted for in the Scheme at all. Secondly, there have been a number of forgeries. In these cases certain Khasra numbers were written in column 5 of the Register Scheme and signatures of some of the Mushawarti Committee members and right-holders concerned were obtained and thereafter the Khasra numbers were cut out and in some cases replaced by other Khasra numbers and in other cases no Khasra numbers were entered at all. Again, in cases of certain lands, the A. C. 0. passed orders in column 10 of the Register Scheme that they were to be kept out of consolidation, apparently in accordance with the provisions of the mode of partition as generally understood at the time, and subsequently these lands were included in consolidation, again apparently by a revised interpretation of the mode of partition with a view to benefit some influential land-owners. Thirdly, in many cases, no regard whatever was paid to entitlement and a number of fortunate land-owners got more land than their entitlement or better quality of land or land better situated, at the expense of others. The record shows that about 126 land-owners received excess land and about an equal number received less land than their entitlement. This, coupled with the obtaining of possession by some of the fortunate individuals and deprivation of possession of the less fortunate ones, satisfies me of the ma/a fides of the Scheme, vitiating the confirmation of the Scheme. Finally, in many cases the same plot number has been allotted to the same person in more than one Khata, affecting his entitlement, or has been allotted to more than one person.
16. For all the above reasons, the confirmation of the Scheme cannot be upheld and is set aside. Ho ever, in order to rectify the position without causing undue dislocation, the following directions are given :--
(i) Possession should not be disturbed except under the orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha, to whom the case is remanded for hearing objections and then confirming the Scheme under section 10 (4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
(ii)Fard Qabza should be prepared within a period not exceeding three months. A special team consisting of one A. C. 0., one Kanungo and three Patwaris should be put on this job.
(iii)The area left out, other than that excluded in the mode of partition, should be included in Consolidation, and by re-distributing it, eliminating double allotments and reducing excess allotments, kami in the entitlement of right-holders should be made good so as to ensure that no one receives a kami of more than 10 marlas.
(iv)Possession may be kept in mind to the extent of entitlement, subject to the condition that the persons who were deprived of better quality land or better situated land are duly compensated by giving back their land to them, or by giving them equally good land, as far as possible.
(v)Entitlement and classification of land will be governed by Zerkar Jamabandi{{URDU TEXT}}.
17.The case is remanded to Additional Deputy Com-missioner (Cons.), Sargodha, with the directions as in para. 16 above.
18.A copy of my order may be sent to the Consolidation Wing of the Board of Revenue with the observation that it may be ensured that action in accordance with my directions as in para. 16 above is completed as expeditiously as possible, and, further, that appropriate action is initiated against the officials responsible for the defects noticed in the Scheme.