This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Bahawalpur dated 22-2-1983, whereby the order of the A.D.C. (Cons.) Collector (Cons.), Bahawalpur dated 31-5-1982 making certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties, was upheld and the appeal of the petitioner dismissed.
2. Briefly, the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 had jointly owned 860 Kanals, 11 Marlas of land in three different Khatas Nos. 81, 82 and 101, situated in Revenue Estate Madkora, Tehsil and District Rahim Yar Khan. Of these, Khata No, 31 measuring 360 Kanals, 11 Marlas and No, 82 measuring 100 Kanals were proprietary while Khata No, 101 measuring 400 Kanals constituted a grant from Government under the Tree Plantation Scheme and held subject to the conditions declared applicable thereto. During the confirmation of consolidation scheme of this village on 31- 12-1941, the Consolidation Officer while allowing the grant land of Khata 101 to be kept joint ,as of before, distributed the proprietary land of Khata Nos. 81 and No, 82 among the co-owners in accordance with their shares. Being aggrieved by this arrangement, the petitioner Sh. Asgnar All filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) on the main ground that most of his possessed land in Khata No, 81 had been given to the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 while the land of Khata No, 101 had been kept joint without any justification. The Collector (Cons.), after hearing the respective claims of the parties held that the land in Khata No, 81 being proprietary and its possession rested jointly with all the co-owners, the petitioner had no right to claim it exclusively for himself. As regards Khata No, 101 the Collector (Cons.) held that the same being a grant from Government under the Tree Plantation Scheme was not partible and would remain a joint tenancy until proprietary rights were acquired in it after payment of full price and fulfilment of other conditions. Accordingly, the Collector (Cons.), vide his order dated 31-5-1982 re-distributed the proprietary land of Khata Nos. 81 and 82 (under mortgage) according to their shares as prescribed under the Muslim Personal Law and allowed the grant land of Khata No, 101 to be held in a joint tenancy till the proprietary rights were acquired. Being not satisfied with this order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), but he failed on 22-2-1983. Hence this revision petition.
3. The main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are :- (0 That the parties bad, in the year 1970, arrived at a family settlement to partition the joint Khatas.
According to this family settlement the petitioner got 153 Kanals of land in Khata Nos. 81 and 37 Kanals in Knata No, 101 and acquired the possession thereof. But during consolidation operations, only 90 Kanals out of his possessed land in Khata No, 81 had been given to him while the remaining 73 Kanals adjusted in the wands of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6;
(ii) That Khata No, 101 which comprised a Government grant under the Tree Plantation Scheme had been kept joint, although after payment of full price that hid already been made, the proprietary rights stood automatically acquired and there was no legal bar to -the partition of the Khata between the parties;
(iii) That the consolidation scheme dated 31-12-1981 had been confirmed in the absence of the petitioner without obtaining his consent and therefore it was illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. The respondents Nos. 1 to 6 have controverted these contentions denying vehemently any family settlement being arrived at between them and the petitioner regarding private partition of the land. They submitted that barring Khata No, 82 which was under mortgage the entire land comprised in Khata Nos. 81 and 101 was held under joint possession, although its cultivation used to be arranged by the petitioner, being the sole male member of the family. During consolidation, the respondents further submitted, Khata Nos. 81 and 82 which comprised proprietary land were apportioned between the parties according to their share as prescribed under the Shariat Law, while Khata No, 101 which constituted a Government grant was kept joint as of before until the proprietary rights were acquired after payment of five instalments which were still due and on fulfilment of other conditions as set forth in the Statement of conditions. It was also submitted that the .Wanda of the petitioners was drawn up and confirmed with the concurrence of his lessee, Gaman respondent No, 7 who had signed the Register Schemes as a duly appointed representative of the petitioner.
5. After having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusing the impugned orders and the relevant record, I find the it the land of proprietary Khata Nos. 81 and 82 was distributed between the parties strictly according to their shares as prescribed under the Shariat Law. For instance, the share of the petitioner in Khata Nos. 81 and 82 was worked out to 90 Kanals and 25 Kanals respectively and that much land bad been assigned to him in each Mate.. Similarly the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 had been given 45 Kanals and 12} Kanals each, as per their share, in these Khatas. The claim of the petitioner that he had acquired and possessed 153 Kanals of land in Khata No, 81 through private partition and was entitled to retain the same, does not appear to be correct.
There is nothing on the record to suggest that the parties had ever entered into a family settlement to partition the joint Khatas or had allowed the petitioner to acquire and possess exclusively as much as l53 canals of land in Khata No,
81. On the contrary, it appears that the entire land, apart from the land of Khata No, 82 which was under mortgage, Was held in joint possession and the petitioner simply arranged its cultivation not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 6, being his mother and sisters. The mere fact that the petitioner had claimed possession over a major part of Khata No, 81 could not afford a ground fo A cOnCediLIS to him 4 )ion's share and denying the other 0-owners of their du hare in that Khata. Every co-owner has a right to be accommodated, as far as possible, in each Khata, according to his or her share and in the instant case the same principle has been followed in distributing the land between the parties.
6. The demand for partition of Khata No, 101 which comprised a Government grant under the Tree Plantation Scheme could not be met until proprietary rights were acquired and the grantees had become full owners of the lands According to section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, a grantee of Government land before becoming a full owner has to fulfil two conditions; firstly the full amount of purchase money with any interest due thereon has to be paid and, secondly other conditions set forth in the Statement of conditions for sale have to be fulfilled. In the present case as it was pointed out by the respondents, five instalments had yet to be paid towards price. However, if it is believed, as the petitioner has urged us to do, that the entire price had already been paid, even then the acquisition of proprietary rights would not become effective until the other conditions of sale which also include the execution and registration of the conveyance deed had been fulfilled. That being the case, the grantees still remained the .Tenants of the land in terms of section 15 and would not claim its partition. In these circumstances the Collector (Cons.) was fully justified to refuse the partition of Khata No, 101.
7. There is also no force in the contention that the scheme of the petitioner was prepared and confirmed without his consent. The record shows that the scheme was drawn up and confirmed with the concurrence of Gaman, respondent No, 7 who was a lessee and representative of the petitioner, duly appointed by him to watch his interests -Muting the consolidation proceedings.
8. In view of what has been stated above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
' This order which was reserved for further scrutiny of record is announced today, the 4th of April, 1984, and may be communicated to the parties concerned.
Petition dismissed .1.41.11