This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi, dated the 22nd October 1968, regarding consolidation of village Haslanwala, Tahsil Phalia, District Gujrat.
2. I have heard the parties through their counsel and gone through the relevant records. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some of the land-owners urged at the time of preparation of Musavada Scheme that the disputed Shamlat land should be partitioned, while the others stated that Shamlat land should not be partitioned; and therefore the A. C. 0. or C. 0. had no jurisdiction to approve the Musavada Scheme finally; and that the case should have been sent to the learned Collector who should have approved the Musavada Scheme under section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
3. The learned counsel further stated that if the Shamlat land is not to be partitioned, then it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings of consolidation under section 7 of the Ordinance. He added that according to sections 4 and 7 read together the consolidation must be done of the entire land of the estate and no part of the estate can be left out. He further submitted that if the Collector wishes to exclude some area from the consolidation operations, he must have good and sufficient reasons for doing so.
4. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that only one man has objected to the exclusion of the Shamlat land at the time of recording statements before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Majority of the land-owners was in favour of not partitioning the Shamlat area; and that the A. C. 0. was fully justified to sanction the Musavada Scheme which, as the very name shows, is a draft, and not the final scheme.
5. I have carefully examined the matter. Actually the Musavada Scheme is not the scheme which is to be confirmed under section 10(3) or 10(4) of the Ordinance. The word "Scheme" is not defined in the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 but rule 17 of the Rules made thereunder clarified the position, which reads:-- "17. Acceptance of the Scheme.--(1) As soon as a scheme of consolidation has been prepared by the Consolidation Officer, it shall be exhibited by means of a map and a register A of the scheme of consolidation.
(2) The land-owners who agree to the scheme as prepared shall sign or affix their thumb-marks in the register of the scheme in token of their acceptance of the scheme."
Thus, clearly the Scheme consists of what is contained in the Register of the Scheme of Consolidation, which is signed or thumb-marked by the land-owners. Therefore, it is the distribution of land described in the Register Scheme which is to b confirmed under section 10(3) by the C. 0. if the scheme has been agreed to by all the land-owners; or under section 10(4) if the C.
O. fails to remove the objections of the land-owners. The Musavada Scheme does not require action under section 10(3) or 10(4) ibid.
6. In addition, it is worthy of note that if a piece of land been kept as joint property it has not necessarily been excluded from consolidation. Even while the piece of land remains joint property it can be subjected to the process of consolidation, e.g., the boundaries of a graveyard, jointly owned by various land-owners may be altered; and the alignment of a path so owned may be changed.
Therefore it is incorrect to say that if Shamlat land is kept as joint property, and not partitioned, the consolidation proceedings must be quashed on the ground of being irregular.
7. The petitioners actually want partition of the Shamlat land, and they can seek their remedy in the usual course for partition of land under the revenue law. The Consolidation Law has a limited scope in this regard.
In view of the foregoing the revision petition seems to be wholly devoid of force and I see no reason to interfere in the order of the lower Courts. The Consolidation is allowed to continue and the revision petition is rejected.