' The scheme was confirmed on 20-9-1977. A miscellaneous application was given to the Collector after the confirmation of the scheme. The Collector sent the case to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who on 26-4-1978 ordered the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) to review the disputed 37 wandas after hearing the parties.
2. The petitioners went to the Board of Revenue who decided on 21-10-1979 that the case should be decided by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) himself after hearing the parties.
3. However, under the orders of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) dated 26-4-1978, the ACO sanctioned Mutation No.1231 on 31-5-1978 after withdrawing 93 kanals 11 marlas from the wandas of the petitioners and giving them some other land in exchange on 22-5-1978.
4. An appeal was made to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) who on 14-2-1980 restored only 2 kanals out of it.
5. The petitioners went in revision petition to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who on 8-6-1982 set aside Mutation No.1231 and ordered ADC (Cons) to visit the site, hear the parties and decide with their consent. The Board of Revenue upheld this decision on 30-11-1982.
6. The Additional Deputy Commissioner(Cons) on 10-1-1984 restored Mutation No.1231 alongwith the exchange of 2 kanals. The revision petition against this order was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) on 7-1-1986, which is the impugned order here.
7. I have heard the two counsel at length. In my opinion a confirmed scheme cannot be reopened by the Collector or the Additional Commissioner under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Reading the law differently would create chaos inasmuch as any number of people could go to the Collector or the Commissioner at any time to render the confirmation nugatory. When the regular opportunity of appeal and revision is available, it is rational to assume that the law does not provide for a parallel scheme of proceedings under Section 13, especially after a scheme has been confirmed and ( ) prepared.
8. If this position is not accepted then the question of a timeframe of general applications to the Collector or the Commissioner shall have to be visualised. The absence of such a timeframe under Section 13 of the Ordinance can only lead to one of the two possible conclusions: that there is an endless time for moving general application, or that no such application can at all be moved after the scheme has been confirmed.
9. Again under the procedure of appeal and revision the order of confirmation can first be challenged before the Collector and only then before the Commissioner. If section 13 is interpreted as allowing for general applications to be moved even after the confirmation, the result would be that a party might bypass the Collector and go straight to the Commissioner to get a decision.
Such an assertion flies into face of the regular judicial remedies which must needs be availed of first at the Court of the Collector and only then at a higher forum.
10. I am therefore of the considered opinion that at least as regards the Collector and the Commissioner they become functus officio after confirmation, and no remedy is available under Section 13 of the Ordinance to approach them.
11. I would construe that it was because of this that the Additional Commissioner (Cons) on 26-4- 1978 and then on 8-6-1982 ordered that the consent of the parties should be obtained before varying their wandas. I would assume that the Additional Commissioner was conscious of his limitation under the law.
12. It is also worth noting here, in another context, that the Board of Revenue on 21-10-1979 asked the Additional Commissioner(Consolidation) to decide the case himself. In view of this decision, which had never been varied, no other authority could decide this case.
13. It has been alleged by the petitioners, confirmed by the record, and not denied by the respondents that the holdings of the petitioners have been increased rather than consolidated. As I have decided in another case which has been reported, an increase in the holdings of a party as a result of consolidation renders that consolidation invalid as against that party.
14. In view of the above arguments I accept the revision petition.
15. However since I have not gone into the merits of the case from the point of view of the position on the ground, I would order the parties to adopt the regular procedure of appeal and revision, if they so chose, to assert anything they like. From the point of view of the present decision, the scheme confirmed on 20-9-1977 still holds the ground. The implication of the present decision is that D the parties, merely because of this long, muddled, and legally irregular litigation are not debarred from adopting at this stage the regular procedure of appeal and I revision, if they so chose.