' This is a writ petiton under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, challenging the orders passed by respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 whereby the land in dispute bearing Khasra No,440 (four kanals) was taken from the entitlement of the petitioners and was given to Muhammad Sadiq, respondent No,l. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners owned land equal to 1968, Produce Index Units and against this entitlement of the petitioners they were given land equal to 1104 Produce Index Units in village Uggoki, Jhah, Jhare and Rajpur. It was found that land equal to 36 Produce Index Units was more than the entitlement of the petitioners. Thus the petitioners, surrendered a piece of land equal to 36 Produce Index Units in village Raipur which ,was given to one Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din vide order of the Collector dated 10-6-1969. Accordingly this order of the Collector was implemented and thus there was no land left with the petitioners in excess of their entitlement. The petitioners also sold a piece of land measuring 4 Kanals 19 Marlas with Khasra No,106 to one Abdul Ghani: Mutation No,147 of this sale was effected but the said sale was from the correct entitlement of the petitioners. The learned Collector (Consolidation) took Khasra No,440 (four Kanals) of land from the entitlement of the petitioners and gave the same to respondent No,2 vide his order dated 0-10-1977. The petitioners went in appeal which appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 16-1-1979. The petitioners being aggrieved of the aforesaid orders challenged the same by filing a revision before Member (Consolidation)
Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The learned Member (Consolidation) dismissed the revision on 30-5-1984. Then the petitioners went in review but the review petition too was dismissed vide order dated -26-11-1984%
2. A report was called for from respondent No,l. Consequently the consolidation authority has sent a report with parawise comments to this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Malik Saeed Hassan, has vehemently contended that land comprising of Khasra No,440 was the ancestral property of the petitioners and as such this land could not be taken away and given to respondent No,2. It is next contended by the petitioners counsel that the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue has made a clear admission in his favour and has said in paragraph 3 of the impugned revisisional order that Khasra. No, 440 was withdrawn from the petitioners and 'no land in lieu thereof was given to the petitioners. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No,2 has filed the written statement challenging the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition and, therefore, under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.0 the judgment in the case may be -straightaway pronounced. Maik Talib Hussain, the learned counsel for respondent No,2 has submitted that the orders of the Consolidation Authorities are correct and have been passed by them competently. It is further contended by the learned counsel that if the disputed land is withdrawn from him, he will become landless which cannot be the object of the Consolidation Ordinance.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at great length and have also seen the whole record very minutely. I am of the considered view that the land comprising of Khasra No,440 is the land owned by the petitioners and if this land is taken away from them, the genuine entitlement of the petitioners stands decreased to that extent. It is not within 'the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to decrease the entitlement of the parties. They may adjust the holding of the parties quality wise but under the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, they are not at all competent to decrease the entitlement of the parties. It is candidly admitted in the report that the entitlement of the petitioners is correct. There is, therefore,, considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that his land to the extent of four kanals has illegally been taken from them. Their entitlement has been decreed without any valid ground. I agree with the contention of the petitioners and proceed to hold that the deficiency in their ownership should be made up as warranted by law. The claim of respondent No,2 cannot be possibly met by doing injustice to the petitioners.
4. The up shot of the above discussion is that the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs in view of the special circumstances of the case. Land comprising of Khasra No,440 measuring 4 Kanals is restored to the genuine entitlement of the petitioners and the case is remanded back to the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue with the direction that he may look into the genuine grievance, if any, of respondent No,2 and if finds that respondent No,2 is a claimant displaced person and he was given land by the concerned authorities in lieu of his claim and if he further comes to the conclusion that respondent No,2 has been deprived of his entitlement without any legal justification, he will make effective arrangements for his accommodation in order to meet his genuine entitlement in the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction under the relevant law on the subject. The case shall be immediately sent to the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue with direction for the disposal of the case within the next two months.