' These two connected revision petitions under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 are directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, dated 2-1-1982, whereby the appeal of the respondents was accepted and the order of the Collector (Cons.), dated 1-10-1981 making certain adjustments in the Khatas of the parties, was set aside.
2. The Consolidation scheme of village Hathiwind, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, on 30-6-1978. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) on the ground that their superior land had been unduly given to the respondents. The Collector (Cons.) partly accepted the appeal and, made certain adjustments in the Khatas of the parties, vide his order, dated 1-10-1981. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who on 2-1-1982 set aside the order of the Collector (Cons.) and restored the original consolidation scheme dated 30-6-1978 as between the parties. No,w the petitioners have come in revision before this Court demanding restoration of their previous Khasra numbers on the ground that they had constructed residential houses in Khasra No,. 88/14-2 and planted fruit trees in Khasra No,. 88/7.
3. I have heard the parties through their counsel and have also perused the record.
4. The record shows that the appeal before the Collector (Cons.) was filed by the petitioners with a delay of about 2 years and 7 months without showing any cogent ground on which exemption from limitation could claimed. As for the disputed land it formed a part of joint Khata .And was not under the exclusive possession of the petitioners. As such they had no superior claim over it. The actual share held by the petitioners in the join Khata came to 80 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in terms of class I. As against this they were allocated 83 Kanals 15 Merles of land in terms of class I land. They plots were also reduced from 31 to 10. In this way they had amply benefited from consolidation and were not entitled to claim any specific Khasra number. Consequently, both these revision petitions fail and are dismissed hereby.