' This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holidings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan dated 16-11-1983, by which he accepted the appeal of respondents Mst. Aziz Mai and her three minor children (Respondents Nos. I to 4) and made certain amendments in the khatas of the parties.
2. Briefly, the consolidation scheme of village Hassain Shah, tehsil and district Multan was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 29-6-1980. Pir Shah, predecessor-in-interest of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), Vehari contending that his owned and possessed land in Rect : Nos. 44, 80 and 81 had been unjustifiably withheld from him.
The Collector (Cons.) observed that the scheme of Pir Shah was prepared and confirmed with his own consent and accordingly dismissed the appeal, vide the order dated 14-11-1981. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 challenged is order in revisions before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Multan who, by his order dated 16-11-1983 made certain amendments in the khatas of the parties by which, among other, an area of 96 Kanals comprising Khasras Nos. 21, 22 of Rect : No 44 Khasras Nos. 1 to 4, 7 to 10 of Rect : No, 80 and Khasras Nos. 5, 6 of Rect : No, 11 was withdrawn from the petitioners and restored to the respondents and in lieu thereof an equivalent area comprising Khasra Nos. 2-Min. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 to 9, 12 to 14, 19 and 22/1 of Rect: No, 277 which was previously owned by Mst. Ghulam Jannat, etc. Of Scheme No, 47 and situated in the bed of Sutluj river, was given to the petitioners.
Now the petitioners have come in revision before this Court saying that in case the previous land of the respondents was to be restored to them then they should have also been given their own land in Rect : Nos. 109 and 110 which had been adjusted in the khata of the respondents Mst. Ghulam Jannat, etc. At Scheme No, 47.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and have also gone through the impugned order and the relevant record. The remaining respondents Mst.
Ghulam Jannat etc. Of Scheme No, 47 have not turned up despite due service of notice and therefore, ex parte proceedings have been taken against them.
4. As would appear from the impugned order dated 16-11-1983 the land in Rectangle Nos. 44, 80 and 81 had been withdrawn from the petitioners and given to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for the simple reason that it belonged to Pir Shah, their predecessor-in-interest. For the same reason the petitioners were also entitled to claim their land comprised in Rectangle Nos 109 and 110. To meet the ends of justice the following adjustments are therefore made in the khatas of the parties {{TABLE}} S. No, Parties names with Scheme No, 1.Mst. Ghulam Jannat, etc. Respondents Scheme No, 47.
Khasra Nos. 109/3/2 (3K-11M), 8 to 9 (16K), 11/2 (5K-14M) 12 to 13 (16K), 18 to 20 (24K), Nos. 110/ 16 (8K), 17 (7K-7M), 18 (8K). I9-min east (7K-8M)-96K.
Khasra No, 109/3/2 (3K-11M), 8-9 (16K), 11/2 (5K-14M), 12 to 13 (16K), 18 to 20 (24K), No, 110/16 (8K), 17 (7K-7M), 18 (8K) 19-min east (7K-8:,...) -96 K.
Kasra Nos. 277/2-min east (3K-6M), 3 to 4(16K),5(5K-18M), 6 (4K-18M). 7 to 9 (24K), 12 to 14 (24K), 15 (3K-18M), 19 (8K), 22/1 (6K)-96K {{TABLE}} ' This revision petition is consequently allowed to the extent indicated.