' This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Lahore, dated 5-4-1983, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent and remanded the case to the Collector (Cons.), Lahore with the direction to adjust the Khasra numbers in dispute in due proportion between the parties.
2. Briefly, the consolidation scheme of village Hanjarwal, tehsil and district Lahore was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, vide order, dated 29-9-1977, whereby, among others, Khasra No, 5054 kham 8045 prikhra and No, 5055 kham 8066 pakhra measuring 12 Kanal, 15 Marlas were allocated to the PCS1R Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter to be called "the petitioner"). The respondent Muhammad Yousai filed a time-barred appeal before the Collector (Cons.) contending that the Khasra numbers in question' had been unjustifiably allocated to the petitioner.
The Collector (Cons.) remanded the case, on 28-10-1980, to the Consolidation Officer for re- adjustment of the wandas in accordance with the entitlement and possession on the spot, of the parties. The Consolidation Officer took . Up the case again and found that the Khasra numbers in dispute had been purchased and possessed by the petitioner and were duly included in its Scheme No, 964, on 28-12-1973 but subsequently by a separate note dated 12-7-1977 recorded in the Register Schemes, the same were wrongly proposed in the name of the respondent without their first being cancelled from the wanda of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer, therefore, vide his order dated 25-11-1981 cancelled the Khasra numbers in dispute from the scheme of the respondent and in lieu thereof included in it Khasra Nos. 4770, 5024, 5017 and 5018 measuring 12 Kanals 15 Marlas. The respondent preferred an appeal against this order before the Collector (Cons.), which was disposed of on 4-9-1982 with the observation that while the extra land given to the petitioner could be resumed, the Khasra numbers in dispute which formed an integral part of its plot should stay with it. Being aggrieved, the respondent again filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), which was accepted on 4-9-1982, and the case remanded to the Collector (Cons.) for re-apportionment of the land between the parties. It is against this order of the Additional Commissioner that the petitioner has come in revision before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Khasra Nos. 5054 and 5055 (kham) corresponding to Khasra Nos. A05 and 8006 (Pukhta) were carved out of Kishtwari Khasra Nos. 244 and 248 which formed a part of Cheat No, 469 and held jointly by Naik Muhammad and his co- owners. Naik Muhammad having been in hissadari possession of these Khasra numbers sold them through Mutation No, 717, dated 28-14954, to Anwar Ali, Asghar Ali and Muhammad Ashraf, who, further sold them in favour of the petitioner Society, vide Mutations No, 1964, dated 5-8-1968 and No, 2117, dated 8-4-1969 and since then the petitioner had been in possession of these Khasra numbers. In the meanwhile the consolidation of the village was undertaken and the Khasra numbers in dispute were accordingly proposed, on 28-12-1973, to be included in the wanda of the petitioner at Scheme No, 964 which subsequently was approved on 22-9-1977 and reiterated on 29-9-1977 at the time of the confirmation of the final scheme of the village. Similarly, the wanda of Muhammad Yousaf respondent who, too, bad purchased the remaining Khasra Nos. 523 and 4848 of Khewat No, 469 from other co-owners was proposed and sanctioned on 27-11-1974 at Scheme No, 1711/1. Subsequently, however the Assistant Consolidation Officer had clandestinely and by collusion with the respondent inserted in the Register Scheme a note, dated 12-7-1977 showing the Khasra numbers in dispute in the wanda of the respondent. This note, the learned counsel submitted, having been recorded fraudulently and without any knowledge of and notice to the petitioner, could not entitle the respondent to claim the Khasra numbers in dispute which had been duly purchased by the petitioner and had already stood included in its wanda.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that Muhammad Sharif etc., successors-in-interest of original owner Naik Muhammad filed a civil suit contesting the title of the petitioner over the land in dispute, but the same was dismissed on 12-12-1974. Thereafter, they moved an application before the Collector (Cons.) who, vide his order, dated 12-11-1976 declared that the petitioner was only a mortgagee and not vendee of the land in dispute and accordingly got the entries in the revenue record corrected by mutation of Sehat Indraj No, 2920, dated 29-11-1976. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who, by his order, dated 10-7-1979 reversed the decision of the Collector (Cons.) and restored the previous entries in the record maintaining thereby the status of the petitioner as vendee of the disputed land. Thus, the learned counsel argued, the title of the petitioner having been finally determined by the two competent Courts it was not lawful for the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to have gone again into the question of title and remained the case to the Collector (Cons.) for fresh apportionment of the land.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as the entitlement of the petitioner Society had originated from the mortgage deed, dated 23-1-1954 and not from any valid document of sale, therefore, no right of ownership had existed in its name on 29-9-1977, when the consolidation scheme was finally confirmed. Besides, the original owner Naik Muhammad had held only 1/66th share (equivalent to 11 Marlas) in Khewat No, 469, which he could lawfully sell, so the entitlement of the petitioner that might have accrued to it through purchase, could not be, in any manner, more than 11 Marlas. As against this, the learned counsel submitted, the respondent owned 12 Kanals 10 Marlas of land in Khewat No, 469 which being situated on the canal bank was most valuable and could not be withheld from him. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the Consolidation Officer having failed, on remand of the case, to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties, he was bound to refer the matter with his recommendations to the Collector (Cons.) under section 10(4) of the Ordinance and not to arrogate to himself the authority to apportion the land between the parties; therefore, his order, dated 25-11-1981 excluding the Khasra Numbers in dispute from the wanda of the respondent and assigning the same to that of the petitioner was without lawful authority and thus void and of no legal effect, and so was also the subsequent order of the Collector (Cons.) upholding the said order of the Consolidation Officer.
6. After having given my careful consideration to these arguments and on perusing the relevant record, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had purchased the disputed Khasra Nos.
5054 and 5055 kham (corresponding to 8005 and 8006 Pukhta) alongwith other area from Khewat No, 469, vide Mutation No, 1964, dated 5-8-968 and No, 2170, dated 8-44969 and the same were allocated to it on 28-12-1973, in ensuing consolidation at Scheme No, 964 and subsequently confirmed in its name on 22-9-1977 and reiterated on 29-9-1977 at the time of final confirmation of the scheme. Likewise, the respondent who had also purchased some area from the same Khewat No, 469, was assigned a separate wanda, on 27-1-1974 at Scheme No, 1711/1, but the same did not include the disputed Kbasra Nos. 5054 and 5055. Subsequently, however, by a separate note recorded in the Register cheines on 12-7-1977 these Khasra Numbers were shown the wanda of the respondent without their first being cancelled from the name of the petitioner. This note, as was obvious, had been inserted collusively and without any notice to the petitioner and could not, therefore, entitle the respondent to claim the Khasra numbers in dispute which had already been included in the wanda of the petitioner since 28-12-1973 and were duly confirmed in its name first on 22-9-1977 and then on 29-2-1977.
7. The contention that the entitlement of the petitioner Society having originated from an inchoate time of the original owner and defective documents of sale, no right of ownership had accrued to it under the consolidation proceedings, has no substance. The record shows that the original owner Naik Muhammad had been under hissadari possession of Khewat No, 469 from which he had competently sold 26 Kanals of land (including the Khasra numbers in dispute) through Mutation No, 717, dated 28-1-1954 to Anwar Ali and Muhammad Ashraf who further sold it in favour of the petitioner, vide Mutations No, 1964, dated 5-8-1968 and No, 2117, dated 8-4-1969 and since then the petitioner had been in continuous possession thereof. It is also on the record that the successors- in-interest of the aforesaid Naik Muhammad had instituted a civil suit against the petitioner to defeat its title but failed on 12-12-1972. Thus at the time of consolidation the ownership of the disputed land had undoubtedly vested in the petitioner, which it could lawfully claim and had accordingly been confirmed to it in terms of section 16 of the Ordinance.
8. There is also no scope for the argument that the Consolidation Officer, in the absence of an amicable settlement, is bound to refer the matter to the Collector (Cons.) under section 10(4) of the Ordinance, even where he is dealing with a case remanded to him by a superior Court for fresh decision by himself. There is no doubt that the Consolidation Officer, before confirming any original scheme under section 10, is required to bring about an amicable settlement and if he fails to do so, then to submit the scheme with his recommendations to the Collector (Cons.) for further action under subsection (4) of the said section. But where he is dealing not with the confirmation of any original scheme under section 10, but only with a case remanded to him, on appeal or in revision, by a superior Court with certain directions, then he will decide the case in accordance with the directions given to him by such Court, regardless of whether an amicable settlement has or has not been brought about within the meaning of section 10 of the Ordinance. As the case in hand was remanded to the Consolidating Officer by the order of the Collector (Cons.) dated 28-10-1980 with the directions B to decide the same afresh and re-adjust the wandas of the parties after determining their entitlement and possession on the spot ; therefore, his order dated 25-11-1981 readjusting the wandas and assigning the disputed Khasra numbers to the petitioner in due compliance of the directions given in the remand order, as also the order of the Collector (Cons.), dated 4-9-1982 passed on appeal upholding the said order (of C. O.) cannot be considered to be suffering from any jurisdictional infirmity as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, it is evident that the Consolidation Officer had rightly apportioned the land between the parties and assigned the disputed Khasra numbers to the petitioner. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had no right to re-open the case and remand it to the Collector (Cons.) for fresh apportionment of the land. Consequently, 1 would allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), dated 5-3.1983 and restore the orders of the Consolidation Officer, dated 25-11-1981 and the Collector (Cons.), dated 4-9-1982 as between the parties. There is no order as to costs.