' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 9-2-1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), 'Sargodha, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners was rejected.
2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.26 to 29-A has raised preliminary objection that under section 13 of the Ordinance, second revision petition does not lie before the Board of Revenue, so the present revision petition is not maintainable. I have considered the arguments. The provisions of Section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, are so clear that there is no doubt about it that there exists no restriction in filing such revision petition in the. Board of Revenue. Therefore, the objection of the learned counsel is not sustainable. I have asked the learned counsel for the parties to proceed on merits.
3. Learned counsellor the petitioners has contended that disputed land was got allotted fraudulently by one Muhammad Aslam against the verified claim of Noor Din, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners on 30-6-1961. Thereafter he got the said land exchanged with Riaz Ahmad respondent No,26 vide Mutation No,1459 dated 15-6-1961. Subsequently on a complaint that land was cancelled by the Settlement Authorities vide order dated 30-12-1970, the matter had gone before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.. The petitioners were directed by the High Court to approach the Settlement Authorities for the allotment of land of Khata No,248. In pursuance of that order the petitioners got allotted land on 17-1-1977 by the Assistant Commissioner, Jhang with the powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Jhang. But entries . In the revenue record were not made promptly: Subsequently a report to that effect was entered in Roznamcha Waqiati vide Rapt No,314 dated 9-a-1983 but the Consolidation Authorities did not take into consideration this fact and wrongly confirmed this land in the wanda of Riaz Ahmad on 18-4-1984. By virtue of that the petitioners were deprived of their legitimate rights. The said allotment was also confirmed by the Member (Revenue) on 26-11-1984. But the Collector, without considering the rights of the petitioners, dismissed their appeal on 17-4-1985 and the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) also, without any justification, confirmed the Collector's order. He has stated that since the petitioners were bona fide allottees of the disputed land (Khata No,248 of RL.II) so it be restored to them.
' Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.26 to 29-A had contended that at the time of consolidation operations the petitioners were not the right-holders in the estate, therefore, they were not entitled to knock at the doors of the Consolidation Authorities for any relief as they were not the "aggrieved persons". He has further contended that Supreme Court had merely directed the petitioners to approach the Settlement Authorities. There was no mention of any allotment. But the Assistant Commissioner, Jhang, exercising the powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) which powers he could not exercise had illegally and without any lawful authority allotted the disputed land in favour of the petitioners on 17-1-1977. That allotment is ab initio void, firstly that the Assistant Commissioner, Jhang was never empowered as Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands). Secondly those allotments of land were banned from 25-6-1973. Since the allotment was of no validity, therefore, they although obtained it on 17-1-1977 yet maintained mysterious silence upto 1983. The first time; that they applied for adjustments of their wands .Was vide Raft No,.314 on 9-5-1983. The said application was returned to them for obtaining sanction from Collector but the petitioners did not re-submit it and in the meanwhile the consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed on 18-4-1984. However, on revenue side their revision was accepted by Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue on 26-11-1984 and consequently mutation was also sanctioned on 21- 3-1985. Learned counsel has further stated that allotment order dated 17-F-1977, Member Revenue's order dated 26-11-1984 and order of sanctioning Mutation dated 21-3-1985 have been challenged by the respondents in the court of Malik Safdar Hussain, Civil Judge. Since the matte' is sub judice in the civil Court, therefore, the present revision is not maintainable. He has further argued that respondent No,29-A was not impleaded party in the lower forum. He has now been impleaded for the first time. They cannot implead any person as a party at revisional stage.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 25 has stated that during consolidation operations in order to have a better shape of their plot, they had exchanged some land with Riaz Ahmad respondent No,26. Their prayer is that their compact block may not be disturbed as they had obtained 26 kanals of land against 50 kanals by way of exchange.
6. After having heard the arguments, I have also examined the relevant record of the case. The perusal of the record shows that the disputed land bearing Khewat No,248 of Register R.L-II was restored in favour of the petitioners in the year 1977. During consolidation operations they applied to Consolidation Authorities to the effect that Riaz Ahmad respondent is no more the owner of the disputed area, therefore, land should not be confirmed in his name. But their request was not processed. Since the petitioners were declared bona fide owners of that land much earlier than the starting of consolidation operations and it has also been allowed to be given effect to vide Mutation No,4073 dated. 21-3-1985 in the revenue record under the orders of Member (Revenue) dated 26-11-1984, therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioners cannot be left landless for an indefinite period and their. Lawful rights should be restored forthwith. I, therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 9-2- 1986 and Collector's order dated 17-4-1985 and direct that the said land in supersession of all previous orders of Consolidation Authorities will be treated under the ownership of the petitioners.