' Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the former husband and respondent No,2 his ex- wife whereas respondents Nos.3 and 4 arc their daughters, They got allotted 59 Kanals and 3 Marlas land in village Dhandcr, Tehsil Shakargarh for maintenance purposes vide Permit No,963 dated 16-5-1951 as Jammu and Kashmir refugees. Later on, the petitioner divorced his wife and she alongwith her daughters started living separately in village Makhwal. In the meanwhile consolidation operations were started in the village Dhander where the disputed land was situated and respondent became owner of 3/4 share and the petitioner remained owner to the extent of 1/4 share. The petitioner challenged that order before the Settlement Officer/Collector, Sialkot who vide his order dated 29-10-1977 dismissed the case in default which was subsequently restored and was accepted on 10-4-1978 by which the names of the respondents were ordered to be deleted from Revenue Record. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondents went in appeal, before the Additional Commissioner who vide impugned order dated 2-4-1986 reversed the order of the Collector. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
2. This revision petition was preferred in May 1986 and was adjourned from time to time due to one reason or the other and could not be disposed of during 5/1-2 years and therefore the parties were asked to submit the written arguments.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not comply with these directions and accordingly the case was taken up and examined on the grounds taken in the revision petition. The first ground stated that the order of the Settlement Officer was passed on the settlement side as Additional Settlement Commissioner and not as Collector and therefore could not have been set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on the revenue side. The evacuee land is considered as unconfirmed and therefore it would be treated as a pending case. The correction of forged entries in the record is also responsibility of the Settlement Authorities and in such case no question of limitation arises. The learned Additional Commissioner had dealt with the case almost on compassionate grounds and not on merits. The land in question was allotted in 1951 while the respondents Nos.3 and 4, the daughters of the petitioner were not even born. The impugned order is void ab initio and may be set aside by accepting the present revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents in the written arguments maintained in rebuttal that the impugned orders were unexceptionable. It is established from the record that the original allotment was made in the names of 4 persons i,e. Petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner himself entered the names of the respondents in the application which he had submitted for allotment of the land for maintenance purposes. The four names were subsequently duly incorporated in the Fard Taqseem and other Revenue record. The Consolidation Operations commenced and the scheme was confirmed in 1975. No interference in the said entries, was therefore, permissible. No revision or appeal was filed by the petitioner against the confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme and therefore the scheme could not have been set aside by the Settlement Officer. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. An essential ingredient of review under section 163(2)(c) is that no order shall be modified or reversed unless reasonable notice has been given to the parties affected thereby to appear and to be heard in support of the order. A bare perusal of the order dated 10-4-1978 of the Settlement Officer/Collector shows that no such opportunity was given to the respondents. Further that that order does not disclose that it was passed on the Settlement side because no orders regarding {{URDU TEXT}} "" can be passed on the Settlement side and after repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, vide Act XIV of 1975 there is no provision of review by a notified officer. Secondly, the Consolidation Scheme of this revenue estate was confirmed in 1975 which does not appear to have been challenged by way of appeal or revision by the petitioner. Any scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance cannot be disturbed or modified through correction of record by the Revenue Authorities. The proper remedy therefore is the appeal or revision C before the Collector Consolidation or higher forum as the case may be. The order of the Settlement Officer/Collector is manifestly without lawful authority and has rightly been set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). There is no force in the present revision petition which is dismissed.