This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Rawalpindi dated 4-11-1981 whereby he made, in pursuance of the direction of the then Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, certain amendments in the khatas of the parties.
2. Briefly, the consolidation scheme of village Baiwal, Tehsil Talagang, district Attock was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 29-12-1976. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) claiming their previous land from certain right-holders other than the present petitioner. The Collector (Cons.) partly accepted the appeal and made suitable amendments in their scheme (No,. 145). Being not satisfied, they approached, through a revision petition, to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who, by his order dated 14-3-1979, made further amendments in the scheme by including Khasra Nos. 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 and 1926 in the Khata of the respondents. Feeling still dissatisfied they filed a fresh, time-barred appeal impleading, for the first time, the present petitioner as a party before the Collector (Cons.) and claiming from him Khasra Nos, 1924, 1925 and 1927 on the ground that the same had been under their possession and also that they had sustained a deficiency of 11-K. 9-M. In their area. The Collector (Cons.), held that the respondents having already exercised the right of appeal in respect of their scheme, their second appeal in that behalf was not competent and accordingly dismissed the same, vide his order dated 20-10-1979. Having also failed in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) on 2-1- 1980, the respondents filed a second revision before the then Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue who, while upholding the orders of the lower Courts and dismissing the revision in limine, observed, vide his order dated 2-6-1980 that the grievances of the respondents with regard to deficiency in their entitlement to the extent of 11 kanals and loss of their pre-possessed land warranted interference under his suo motu powers. He, therefore, caused an inquiry to be conducted by the Consolidation Officer (Hqs.), Board of Revenue, and on receiving a report from him that the respondents Lal Khan and Aulia Khan bad been unduly deprived of 11 kanals, 9 marlas of land and also their pre-possessed Khasras Nos, 1924, 1925 and 1927, directed the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to proceed suo motu in the matter and rectify the slip wherever found in the scheme.
2. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) accordingly, took up the case again and after hearing both the parties and on going through the record held that whereas the respondents were not entitled to get any more land on account of the so-called deficiency alleged to have occurred in their area, the allotment of Khasra Nos, 1924, 1925 and 1927 which were previously under their possession, though beyond entitlement, could not be denied to them. He, therefore, by his order dated 4-11-1981 re-adjusted the khatas of the parties by giving Khasra Nos, 1924-min east, 1927 and 1925-min north-east measuring 57 kanals, 3 marlas to the respondents and, in lieu thereof, an equivalent area comprising Kbasra Nos, 2024/1, 2025, 2026, 1926-min south and 2023 to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come in revision before this Court.
4. I have heard the parties through their counsel at length and have also examined the record with care.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the then learned Member (Cons.) Board of Revenue after having dismissed the revision petition of the respondents by his order dated 20-6- 1980, passed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, was left with no power to cause a further probe to be made in the matter and if direction to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to re-decide the case suo motu, nor it was cmopetent to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to take up the case again and decide it afresh under his presumed suo motu jurisdiction in compliance with the direction so given to him by the learned Member (Cons.). Reliance in this connection was placed on this Court's earlier judgment reported as Muhammad Din and 3 others v. The State etc. wherein it has been laid down that ". Case once decided by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional powers under section 13(1) (b) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 cannot be competently re-opened and decided afresh by exercise of its suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Clause (1) (a) of the same section and vice versa." Further, "that suo motu exercise of jurisdiction is entirely within the discretion of the authority in which it vests, and where that authority has proceeded on the direction or advice of any higher authority or of any Tribunal issued in presumed exercise of some superior jurisdiction, then it will not be suo motu jurisdiction of that authority, but simply the compliance of the direction advice of the higher authority or the Tribunal". Viewing from this legal position, I think the order dated 2-6-1980 of my learned predecessor whereby he first dismissed the revision petition of the respondents and then started an inquiry under his suo motu powers and issued direction for re opening the case by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) under his suo motu powers, was without lawful authority and consequently the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 4-11-1980 which was passed in purported exercise of his suo motu powers in compliance with the direction so given by the learned Member (Cons.), was also without jurisdiction and thus void and of no legal consequence.
6. Considering the merits of the case, I find that the respondents had two-fold grievances. Firstly that a deficiency of 11 kanals, 9 marlas had occurred in their entitlement and secondly that they had not been given their pre-possessed land comprising Khasra Nos, 1924-min, 1925-min and 1927-min measuring about 57 kanals, 3 marlas. In this connection I have seen B the entitlement statement produced by the Patwari and also the relevant record and find that the respondents had already obtained 114 kanals, 7 marlas of land as against their previous entitlement of 1141 kanals, 14 marlas. There was thus a deficiency of only 7 marlas, which being less than the permissible limit of 10 marlas did not call for any interference under the law.
7. As regards the disputed Khasra Nos, 1924, 1925 and 1927 the same were owned jointly by the petitioner and the respondents in the ratio of 2 and 1 respectively. No, doubt that the respondents had manoeuvred into possession of these Khasra numbers during the consolidation proceedings, but such possession having not been acquired with the permission of the Consolidation Officer in terms of section 18 and section 24 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 could not entitle them to claim these Khasr numbers, particularly when they had been duly allotted to the petitioner and the respondents had filed no appeal or revision against the petitioner for about 3 years and even when the appeal was belatedly filed by them before the Collector (Cons.) they had not shown any cogent grounds for exemption from limitation. In these circumstances the appeal of the respondents had been rightly dismissed by the Collector (Cons.), vide order dated 20-10-1979 and their revision petition by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), vide order dated 2-1-1980. The Member (Cons.) has also upheld these orders and dismissed the revision petitions of the respondents, vide his order dated 2-6-1980. Thus, after having finally dismissed the revision petition of the respondents, learned Member (Cons.) was left with no power to cause a further probe to be made in the matter and issue direction to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to revise the scheme suo motu after a lapse of more than 5 years.
8. In view of what has been stated above, I think the order of the learned Member (Consolidation) dated 2-6-1980 in so far as it calls for suo motu interference in the scheme as also the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 4-11-1981 revising the scheme in purported exercise of his suo mow jurisdiction in pursuance of the direction given to him by the learned Member (Cons.) was without lawful authority and, therefore, void and unsustainable. Consequently I would allow this revision petition, recall, by way of review, the last para. Of the order dated 2-6-1980 of the then learned Member (Cons.) and set aside the order dated 4-11-1981 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.).
9. This order which was reserved for further scrutiny of record is announced today, the 24th November, 1982, in the presence of the counsel of the parties. PLD 1982 Rev. 2