' This is a revision petition filed under Section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 3-11-1984 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore, whereby the revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the respondent without impleading them as a party before the Collector (Cons.) has managed to get Khasra No,5073 (8042 new) which was in the possession of the petitioners since 1979. In lieu of it the petitioners were allocated Khasra No,5066 which is deep ditch. Being aggrieved by that order the - petitioners filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who dismissed it without any justification. He has stated that no time limit has been prescribed for filing revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.). Learned counsel has further contended that the respondent purchased land from the wanda of Inayat Begum, therefore, she was not 'entitled to get land from the Khata of Azim-ud-Din etc.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent had purchased a part of old Khasra No,362 corresponding new No,8042(4K). Mutation to that effect was sanctioned on 3-12- 1974, and she became a right-holder in the estate. During consolidation operations she was wrongly adjusted in Khasra No,8033(5066). On her return from abroad, she came to know about it and filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), who redressed her grievance and resultantly Mutation No: 8144 was sanctioned on 20-4-1980. That order has attained finality because the petitioners did not challenge it. He has further argued that interchanges of property took placd between the two right-holders i.e, the respondent and Azim-ud-Din etc. Since the petitioners are not scheme-holders so they cannot be considered as "aggrieved persons" within the ambit of consolidation law. As such they have no locus standi to agitate the matter. The petitioners were not the purchaser of old Khasra No,362, therefore, they are not entitled to claim that number. Mere possession cannot create ownership. Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that in the presence of Mutation No,8144 dated 20-4-1980, the subsequent Mutation Nos.18187 to 18189 dated 11-10-1983 in favour of the petitioners are of no legal effect.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the writteni, arguments submitted by the parties. I have also examined the record of the case. It is clear that the respondent did purchase a part of Khasra No,362 (old) whereas the petitioners purchased old Khasra Nos.327 and 332 which are not in any way connected which the former number. So, as compared to the petitioners. The respondent had a preferential right over it, the petitioners also are not scheme-holders and therefore, they have no locus standi to agitate the matter. Consequently, they were not impleaded as party before the Collector (Cons.) as the real tie was between the scheme-holders. It is also a well-settled point of law that no claim for a piece of land for the purposes of consolidation of holdings can be admitted on the basis of possession without title. So on the basis of possession alone the petitioners have no case. In view of these facts, I see no force in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.