HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION).--This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 6.8.1989 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur Division, whereby he accepted the revision petition of the respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the revenue estate Garhi Akhtar Khan Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Consolidation Officer on 31.3.1986. The respondent, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal in the court of the Collector (Cons), who vide his order dated 15.9.1988 rejected it after visiting the site to verify the possession over khasra No.250/16/6. He held in his order that out of this khasra number land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas had been in physical possession of the petitioners. On 3 kanals, the petitioner Bashir Ahmad had raised boundary wall while the respondent in his possession on 3 kanals 10 marlas where petition in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), who vide his impugned it holding that the record in respect of khasra No. 230/10, 6 measuring 7 kanals favoured the respondent according to register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1982-83 Khewat No.51 /247, the respondent owned and possessed the disputed land individually, while the petitioners were neither shown as owner nor in possession of the disputed land.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respective schemes of the parties were confirmed with their consent. The scheme had been signed by respondent Abdul Razzaq in token of its acceptance but the respondent still preferred an appeal before the "Collector (Cons).
The latter visited the spot and after verifying the position on the ground had dismissed the appeal.
However, the respondent's revision petition was accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Cons).
The impugned order was not logical; it admits petitioners possession but gives the area in dispute i.e. Khasra No, 250/16 (1 kanal 10 marlas) to the respondent. The petitioner had continuous possession over this land for more than 12 years. Respondents Nos. 20 and 21 before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) were minors but the interest was not safeguarded. The guardian so appointed to watch their interest was not summoned. The proceedings before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) had, therefore, become null and void and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. The learned counsel placed reliance on NLR 88 CU 133; NLR 88 S.CJ. 318; 1988 CLC 2441; PLD 1971 (Rev.) Punjab 1 and PLD 61 Lahore 183 in support of his arguments.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal that consolidation was based on the 'current of rights which was 1982-83. The respondent had a joint khata with Sardar Bibi and Murad Bibi in equal shares. In 1979 he purchased their share and thus became full owner of this khata. At the time of confirmation of this khata the respondent was full owner with possession and was entitled to khasra No.250/16 (1 kanal 10 marlas) which was a part of this khata. The respondent had possession as well as title and was correctly restored this land. The learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 1974 Rev. PLD 1978 Rev. 40 and PU 1987 S.C.636.
5. I have considered the arguments; perused the case record and the sketch map prepared by the patwari. A perusal of the record reveals that Abdul Razzaq etc. Were exclusive owners in possession of Khata No.51 according to record of right 1982-83. Field No.250/16/6 (7 kanals) belongs to this khata and therefore the respondent had preferential right over it but during consolidation proceedings khasra No.250/16/6-Shumali measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas was given to the petitioners ignoring the respondent's better claim and entitlement. It has been correctly held by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons) that possession cannot override entitlement. This land is situated on the road and is valuable. The respondent should not have been deprived of it in the first instance. There was no apparent reason for the respondent to cede this valuable piece of land in favour of the petitioners and it does not suggest his willing consent unless some trick was played on him. As regard the learned counsel for the petitioners argument regarding protection of the interest of minors before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) the record reveals that the minors were represented through Ghulam Shabbir, respondent No.11 whose learned counsel was Sh.Inayat Ali Advocate, who also happens to be petitioners' counsel presently, according to the order sheet and power of attorney. The interest of thd minors has, therefore, been duly protected. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.