' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 19-9-1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Lahore Division, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the village Mustafabad, Tehsil and District Kasur was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 31-12-1979. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an appeal in the Court of Collector (Consolidation) who vide his order dated 10-11-1985 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 24-5-1987 restored the Khasra Nos.2320 and 2325 to the petitioner. The respondent challenged the said order in the Court of Collector (Cons.) who vide his order dated 4-4-1988 accepted the appeal holding that the request of the respondent in appeal originally filed in his Court was for the restoration of Khasras Nos.1357, 1358 and 1359. The petitioner assailed this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) vide his impugned order dismissed it holding that the pre-consolidation possession of the petitioner was established in respect of Khasras Nos.2320 and 2325 and if these Khasra numbers, were withdrawn from the respondent he would have his holding divided into two plots instead of one allocated to him during the Consolidation Operations. The respondent is a small land-holder. It would be unfair to split up his holding into two blocks. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that old Khasras Nos.1352, 1356 to 1360, new Khasras Nos.2320 (1K) and 2325 (2K-8M) were previously possessed and owned by the petitioner which have been given to the respondent. These field numbers, fall within the boundary of town committee and hence urban and valuable. The Collector (Cons.)'s order dated 4-4-1988 was illegal so far as it held that the petitioner had not appealed for restoration of these Khasra numbers,.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent maintained, in rebuttal, that the revision was filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The question involved very small area. The consolidation scheme was confirmed with the consent of the parties. Abdul Karim petitioner was the member of the Advisory Committee and he got the choicest land. Khasras Nos.2320 and 2325 are adjacent to his previous holding, and have been correctly given to him. If he is thrown at a distance it will be difficult for him to cultivate the same.
5. I have considered the arguments and seen the pre-and post- consolidation sketch niap prepared by the Patwari. The petitioner has been accommodated in Scheme No,198 mostly according to his previous possession, but he has also obtained several other plots near the main Ferozepur Road which were not previously possessed by him. Due to this reason the number of his pre-consolidation six plots increased to 11 after consolidation. The petitioner does not seem to have objected to adjustment of valuab pre-consolidation area of other right-holders, in his scheme such as Kh Khasras Nos.7298, 2913, 2904, 2905, 2900, 7242, 7317, 7398 etc. But has taken exception when the same principle was applied to him. After the consolidation the petitioner has alienated 145K-16M land vide various transactions, thus taking it out from the purview of the Consolidation Courts during the pendency of the litigation. The petitioner's conduct clearly debars, him from seeking any meaningful relief in this forum. Seen at the macro level he has drawn enormous benefits from the consolidation proceedings. Such benefit should be evenly spread over all right- holders, and not restricted to the influential minority. The reasons given in the impugned order are cogent and unexceptionable and are upheld. The revision petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.