' This petition under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 seeks to review my order dated 17- 8-1982 passed in R.
0. R. No, 84/1979-80 whereby the revision of respondents Ghulam Rasul etc. Was accepted, the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Multan dated 28.7-1979 and the Collector (Cons.)
Multan dated 6-3-1978 were set aside and the confirmation order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 29-6-1976 was restored as between the parties.
2. Brief facts are that the consolidation scheme of Revenue Estate Bahadarpur, Tehsil Shujabad, District Multan was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 29-6-1976. Eisa respondent No, 3 alongwith his co-sharers Ghulam Raul and Muhammad Ramzan respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the confirmation of the scheme, in appeal, before the Collector (Cons.). During the hearing of the appeal Eisa respondent entered into a compromise with Khushi Muhammad respondent.
Accordingly the Collector (Cons.) amended the Khatas vide order dated 6-3-1978 giving, in terms of the compromise, Khasra Nos. 285/17, 18, 22, 23 and 24 (measuring 36 kanals Class H) to Khushi Muhammad respondent No, 4 and Khasra Nos. 252/13, 14, 15-2 min Janubi, 18 and 23 (measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas Class I and 32 kana/s Class II) to respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Subsequently Khushi Muhammad sold the land falling to his lot under the compromise to the petitioners Rasul Bakhsh etc.
3. The order dated 6.3-1978 was challenged by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) but they failed on 28-7-1979. Thereafter they filed a revision petition before this Court, which was accepted on 17-8-1982 and the original consolidation scheme restored mainly for the reason that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were under imprisonment at the relevant time and had never authorised Eisa respondent to enter into a compromise with Khushi Muhammad. The petitioners felt aggrieved as being vendees of the land in dispute and filed a Writ Petition (W. P. No, 1104-1982) before the Lahore High Court where one of the pleas raised by them was that as Eisa respondent was himself a party to the compromise and the proceedings before the Collector (Cons.), therefore, he was bound by the terms of the compromise at least to the extent of his own share. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 25-9-1982 by Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Lone with the observation that as the petitioner had not agitated this point before the learned Member, therefore, their remedy would lie in moving him in the matter. Hence this review petition.
4. The moot point is whether a co-sharer in the joint Khata which is less than subsistence holding is entitled to get his own share separated and exchange it by entering into a compromise with some other land owner. The learned counsel for the petition has argued that as the Khata was jointly held by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, therefore, Eisa respondent who was the principal shareholder was fully competent to enter into a compromise for exchange with Khushi Muhammad respondent. In any event, the learned counsel argued, Eisa respondent being himself a party to the compromise was bound by its terms at least to the extent of his own share in the joint Khata which comes to 27 kanals 10 marlas of the land in dispute.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that as the compromise to the extent of Eisa's share could not be given effect to without partitioning the joint Khata, which was prohibited by paragraph 22 of M. L. R. 115, therefore, it was void and inoperative even against Eisa respondent.
6. After having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusing the record I am of the view that the joint Khata in this case being less than subsistence holding it could not be partitioned in view of the prohibition imposed by paragraph 22 of M. L. R. 115, nor any co-sharer was entitled to have his own share separated and exchange it by entering into a compromise with some other land-owner.
There is thus no merit in the argument that .The compromise was lawfully entered into by Eisa respondent or that he was bound by its terms at least to the extent of his own share. The compromise being violate of para. 22 of M. L. R. 115 was void both wholly as well as partly and, therefore, ineffectual and inoperative, Consequently, this review petition fails and it is dismissed hereby.