This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 21-10-1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Bahawalpur whereby revision. Petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 29-6-1984. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), who dismissed it on 4-3-1985. Thereupon, the respondent went in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who vide impugned order accepted it. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that out of 8K of land of Kh. No.496/7 Killa No.6, the petitioners purchased 3K of land from Ashiq Ali etc. And the remaining 5K were left in Khata of Sri Darbar Sahib Amritsar. In consolidation operations this area was adjusted in the respective Khatas of the petitioners and Sri Darbar Sahib. The respondent feeling aggrieved by that order of confirmation filed on appeal before the Collector (Cons.), who rightly dismissed it but the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), without applying his mind has allotted the whole disputed Khasra number to the respondent on the basis of allotment order dated 13-3-1959 in the RL-II. The Register RL-11 being tampered with, is not reliable. The petitioners who were bona fide purchasers of the disputed land, were illegally deprived of that area. The entries of the alleged allotment are not available in the revenue record so the respondent is not entitled to claim that land. Further, the matter was sub judice in the High Court regarding the title of the disputed land and as such the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was not competent to decide the title of the respondent. The impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that disputed Khasra No.496/7 Kills No.6 was allotted to him at Register RL-11 at Khata No.9 on 13-3-1959 and up til now was under his possession During consolidation operation it was illegally adjusted in the Khata of the petitioners and Sri Darbar Sahib. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has rightly adjusted it in the Wanda of the respondent: The impugned order is quite good and calls for no interference.
I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined! The record of the case. A perusal of the record shows that according to Register Haqdaran Zamin 1981-82 (Zar-e-kar) Kh. No.496/7 Killa No.6 Lei) measuring 3K was owned by Ali Muhammad the predecessor--in-interest of the petitioners 3 to 7 at Khewat No.60 and was cultivated by Khan Muhammad respondent as tenant- at-will. Similarly the remaining 5 Kanals of this Khasra number was owned by Sri Darbar Sahib at Khewat No.84. It is a well--established law that one cannot claim allocation of a particular land in one's Wanda during consolidation on the sole ground that it was under one's possession. As such thatA Khasra number.Was rightly adjusted in the respective Wandas of its owners as recorded in Register of Rights Zar-e-kar. Moreover, consolidation authorities are not normally supposed to adjudicate upon complicated and disputed claims of ownership which requires thorough and detailed enquiry and can best be decided by a Civil Court. The impugned order is bad in law in the circumstances of this case. I, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the Collector's order dated 4-3-1985.