' This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grievance that the direction of this Court in the course of previous Writ Petition No,278/R of 1975 is not being complied with by the Assistant Commissioner with the powers of a notified officer, Hafizabad.
2. There is little scope for confusion or for raising a controversy in the light of the order of this Court dated 25-3-1976 passed in the course of Writ Petition No,278/R of 1975. I may refer to the operative part of the judgment of this Court which inter alia reads as under:- ' it is quite clear that the petitioner is liable to lose the land from his present holding after consolidation an area equivalent in terms of value to the area which he had purchased from the allotment of Amiruddin as the latter's title has been extinguished in the Mukhbari proceedings which have become final and hold the field. The petitioner cannot make any grievance as regards land surrendering to the extent to which he had got in consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land purchased by him from the allotment of Amiruddin."
' Later in the judgment, it is also observed-- "The learned counsel for the respondents also does not contest that the petitioner is to lose land from his present holding only to the extent that he had got in lieu of the land in the earlier allotment of Amiruddin, though according to him, this has already been done."
' In the later part of the order, it is again directed-- "The petitioner shall have to surrender land equivalent in value to the extent he had got in lieu of the land purchased from Amiruddin and that shall go over to the respondent."
3. I am clear in my mind that the land which is to be given to the respondents after taking it away from the petitioner will be based on evaluation of the land held in allotment by Amiruddin and purchased by the present petitioner i.e, area of 125 Kanals 7 Marlas as made in terms' of consolidation scheme. I fail to understand why the learned Assistant Commissioner is facing difficulty in finding its equivalent in classification in the consolidation operations. The question of units in this altered situation will be wholly irrelevant. The petitioner lost the land purchased by him from the original claimant and the land allotted to the respondents was to be the same i.e, 125 Kanals 7 Marlas. Since there have been consolidation operations and the land has been exchanged for land according to the evaluation formula of the Consolidation Scheme, therefore, any reference to the units equivalent of the land at the time of allotment under Rehabilitation Scheme would not be relevant. In substance, what the petitioner would lose is the land for land equivalent of 125 Kanals 7 Marlas and what the respondents would gain will be an area in equal value after taking into consideration the adjustment made during the consolidation operations.
The area to be surrendered shall be obviously in accordance with the choice of the petitioner in the light of the principle of consolidation of Holdings. This is to be done on equitable basis, and if possible land of all classifications may be given which is a fact ascertainable from the Consolidations records.
4. This writ petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. The case is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner to decide it afresh in accordance with the direction of this Court in the previous writ petition and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.