1. ' This revision petition has been filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 31-5-1986, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), whereby he rejected, the appeal of the petitioners.
2. ' Brief facts' of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Zaffarwal, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23-7-1980. The respondent Muhammad Boota felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his order dated 23-2-1986 rejected the same on the ground that the respondent Muhammad Boota had become landless due to a decree, passed by the Civil Court which was made in favour of petitioners. However, during the hearing of the case they applied for being made as a party to the learned Collector (Cons.) but the learned Collector (Cons.) turned down the request of the petitioners. He held that after four years, they could not be impleaded as a. Party.
3. The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Collector (Cons.) in the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his impugned order rejected it on the same score.
4. Hence this revision petition.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner and of the respondents alongwith the parties, were present.
6. The parties heard and record examined.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Consolidation Scheme was approved on 22-7-1980. One Muhammad Boota, getting aggrieved from the Consolidation Scheme, filed an appeal before the Collector. During pendency of the appeal, Muhammad Boota sold the land in favour of the present petitioner who applied for being impleaded as a party in the petition. The appeal of Muhammad Boota was dismissed on the ground that having sold this property he had been divested of any right or title in the land. The present petitioner likewise was non-suited on the ground that had met the appeal of Muhammad Boota. It is unfair order in the sense that it divested both the vendor and the vendee of their legal title in the land at the same time without going into merits of the case.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present petitioner acquired the ownership right on 11-4-1982 through a civil decree. The application for being impleaded a party was made on 23-2-1986. It will be seen that there is an inordinate delay between the acquisition of the right of ownership and the application for being made a party in the proceedings. The period between 11-4-1982 to 23-2-1986 remains unaccounted to date as to why the present petitioner failed to move the Court. The learned counsel for the respondents went on arguing that Boota should have retained the cause of action throughout the proceedings in order to be able to agitate his legal right. However, he decided to dispose of the land and as such divested himself of this legal status. At the same time, the purchaser purchased what was the land allocated to Boota as a consequence of Consolidation Operations. Therefore, the present petitioner has no title in the land subject of suit before the learned Collector. That is why at the same time Boota and the purchaser were both deprived of their rights. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents quoted PLD 1969 W.P. (Revenue) 13 and PLD 1975 Revenue 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner, using his right of reply said that the present case could be distinguished from the authorities stated by the learned counsel for the respondents so far as the petitioner did not prefer a separate appeal. He wanted to be impleaded as a party in the same appeal filed by Muhammad Boota which was still pending adjudication before the learned Collector. ##TS# I have heard the arguments and examined the record carefully. There is a lot of force in the respondents' contention that the petitioner is guilty of an inordinate delay in seeking redress of his supposed grievance. He acquired the ownership on 11-4-1982 and moved the Court as late as 23- 2-1986. The period in between is unaccounted for. Besides there are two- concurrent decisions against him by the A lower Courts and the petitioner has failed to offer any new grounds on the basis of which the decision arrived at by the lower Courts could be set aside.
7. ' In view of the above, I proceed to dismiss the petition.
8. ' The judgment of the case was reserved, therefore, parties to be informed accordingly.