1. This is a revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1900 against the order dated 28-11-1983 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Lahore Division.
2. It has been stated in the revision petition that the consolidation scheme of village Jhangrawan, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot was confirmed on 29-11-1968 and there was no justification for the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to entertain a time-barred appeal of 15 years. That the plea of the respondent that he was allotted Khasra No. 502 during consolidation operations is erroneous and that the fording of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) is not based on fact.
2. 3.1 have heard both the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
3. 4.The facts of the case are that Khasra No. 502 was allotted to Ghulam Ghaus respondent in the Consolidation Scheme but in the Mussavi and Khatauni Pamaish this khasra number was shown in the name of the residents of village Jhangarwan. The respondent pleaded before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) that this discrepancy in the consolidation record was not due to his fault and if the wrong entries are allowed to remain as such he would suffer a deficiency of 8 kanals of land. The residents of village Jhangarwan and the patwari, who were present before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) did not oppose the claim of the respondent but on the other hand supported his contention and requested for necessary correction in the record. As there was an apparent mistake in the Revenue Record, therefore, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was justified in condoning the delay. It was clear from the perusal of record that Khasra No.502 was allotted to the respondent and was confirmed in his name by the order of the Consolidation Officer as written in column No. 10 of the Register of Consolidation Scheme with regard to Scheme No. 4 of the respondent. This Khasra No. 502 was corresponding to old Khasras Nos. 492 and 493 which were subsequently changed to Khasra No. 587 in the A Bandobast. The respondent had all along continued to be the owner and in possession of this khasra number according to the entries in the Revenue Record. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) rightly gave preference to the entries in the register of Consolidation Scheme which proved beyond any doubt that thisl, land had been given to the respondent. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was, therefore, justified in ordering the correction in the relevant consolidation record.
4. 5.In view of the above, there is no substance in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.