1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division, dated 17-12-1966 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners regarding consolidation of holdings in village Bet Hussain, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, was rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are Ghair Dakheelkaran and Malguzaran ; and they pay approximately 1/16th of the produce as Lichh to the land owners; that the petitioners are owners of the land to the extent of 15/16th, and the land-owners are owners to the extent of 1/16. He submitted that Ghair Dakheelkaran and Malguzaran are the land owners of almost the entire land namely 15/16th and therefore the land in their possession was correctly consoledated by the A. C. 0., and orders of the authorities above against them were wrongly passed. He argued that the learned A. C. 0. correctly consolidated the land of Ghair Dakheelkaran and Malguzaran separately from the land of the land-owners as it was in their possession to the extent of 15/16th. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners are land-owners within the meaning of the definition of a land-owner as given in West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 as they were enjoying profits of the estate. The learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the appeal of the respondents was decided by the R. A. who had no jurisdiction to do so. The learned counsel for the petitioners finally stated that the appeal before the learned Collector was barred by limitation, and that the learned Collector has not even adverted to this point in the order nor condoned the delay. I have considered the matter carefully. Admittedly the learned Collector has not specifically condoned the delay, and therefore the order is defective and must be set aside. The learned Additional Commissioner's order must also be set aside as he upheld the order of the learned Collector. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioners are tenants not only because they are described as Ghair Dakheelkaran, but also because they admittedly pay which the respondents claimed to be as much as 1/3rd; and that even if they pay 1/16th of the produce the petitioners are tenants, because a tenant is one who holds land under any person on payment of rent, and the extent of rent is not material. The learned counsel further argued that since the petitioners are tenants they cannot be land-owners, in any case in accordance with the above definition. He further stated that the A. C. 0. was quite wrong in preparing the khatas tenants-wise because that act was not consolidation of the land of land-owners, but it was in fact fragmentation of the land. I have examined the relevant record and have gone through the impugned order, and have given my earnest consideration to the points raised. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are land-owners virtually of 15/16 share of the land concerned, is not maintainable as the entries of the relevant record shows that the petitioners are Ghair Dakheelkaran and Malguzaran, and they cannot claim themselves to be land-owners, unless they get this point decided in their favour by some competent Court. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force, as the definition of the word "Collector" is clear on the point. It includes any other officer specially empowered by the Board of Revenue to perform the functions of a "Collector" The R. A. at that time was specially empowered by the Board of Revenue to perform the functions of a Collector, and therefore he had requisite jurisdiction. It is worthy of note in the definition of "Collector" the words empowered "to perform the functions of a Collector" are not followed by the words "under this Ordinance" as has been done in the case of definition of the Nawaz "Consolidation Officer". Therefore any Officer who has been specially empowered by the Board of Revenue to perform -- the functions of a Collector has jurisdiction to perform such functions under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Member Ordinance, 1960.
3. The parties have been given due notice to appear today the 10-10-1969, as the case was to be examined in exercise of my suo moto jurisdiction. I find that the order of the Collector is bad in law because he had not adverted to the question of limitation in his order, and the delay in filing the appeal before the learned Collector had not been specifically condoned even in the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. Therefore the two orders of the learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside. I find that the A. C. 0. has not consolidated the land in the proper manner as the consolidation has admittedly been done by him separately for the land in possession of persons who are not recorded as land-owners in the relevant column of Jamabandi Zerkar. Therefore scheme confirmed by the A. C. 0. is also set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Consolidation Officer for preparation of fresh scheme in this behalf.