' These revision petitions are directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the orders dated 31-12-1989, 16 & 17-1-1990 and 27-1-1990, 12-2-1990 of the Director Land Records and Consolidation Officer respectively, whereby mutation Nos. 884; 882, 883, 904, 905,906,932 and 892 were cancelled.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate Rai, Tehsil and District Lahore was confirmed under section 10(4) of the Ordinance ibid by the Collector (Cons.) on 26-3-1962 but the record was lost. It was decided at the level of highest judicial forum to reconstruct the record of the village instead of re-consolidation. It has also been reported that the Register R.L.-H of his village was burnt and new one was ordered to be re-constructed.
3. M/s Jan Muhammad, Farooq, Allah Bakhsh submitted an application on 4-3-1989 to the D.L.R.
Requesting for getting their allotment incorporated in the revenue record of village Rai. The A.D. L.R.
(Records-II) was directed to examine the case who after an enquiry submitted two reports dated 19-4-1989 and 22-5-1989 respectively. He recommended incorporation of the applicants' allotment and corrections in the revenue record in favour of Surgan, Kazim Ali, Iftikhar-ud-Din, Feroze Din, Sakhi Muhammad, Jay Singh, Bhundho and Ghammando. The D.L.R. Punjab endorsed the same to the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons), Lahore for correction of record. The Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) was advised to collect the original file from the field staff and issue orders in each case separately but the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) endorsed the same to the Consolidation Officer, City Lahore for compliance.
4. The Consolidation Officer attested mutations Nos. 882, 884, 892 and 932 (Tabdeel Malqiat) in favour of Surgan for 17K-16M Ghammando for 76K-14M, Jay Singh for 108K-16M, and Maj. Kazim All for 52K-17M on 4-7-1989 and 17-7-1989. Similarly mutations No,883, 904,995 and 906 (Tabdeel Malkiat) comprising an area 30K-13M, 257K-4M, 169K-15M and 814K-8M in favour of Bundo, Feroze Khan, Iftikhar-ur-Din and Sakhi Muhammad weresanctioned on 4-7-1989 and 26-8-1989 by the Consolidation Officer City Lahore.
5. Later on, Haji Ali Akbar submitted an application on 21-12-1989 to the D.L.R. Stating that mutations Nos.883, 904,905 and 906 had been sanctioned against the spirit of law as the matter was already sub-judice in various Courts and status quo had already been granted by the Addl: Commissioner
(Cons) and Chief Settlement Commissioner on 28-12-1988 and 23-9-1982. He brought out that the regular enquiry about the illegality/authenticity of the claim form allegedly verified in the names of the aforesaid persons had been held under the order of the D.C./Settlement Commissioner, Lahore by the E.A.C.R. Who had sent for the R.L.-II Registers and had recorded the statements of Muhammad Naseem Settlement Clerk who stated that Khata No, 490/536 in the name of Sakhi Muhammad and Khata No,480/516 in the name of Allah Bakhsh did not bear the signatures of any authorised officer and even no proposal was confirmed regarding any field number in the name of the claimant. Similarly he stated that in another volume of Register R.L.-II against Khata No,478 the name of Iftikhar-ud-Din holding. 540 units with an area of 270 Kanals had been recorded without any order of confirmation from the competent authority. He further stated that the Khata No,479 in the name of Feroze Khan was similar as narrated above.
6. The E.A.C.R. Vide his report dated 10-i-1986 reported that Muhammad Shafi, etc., had occupied an area of 497 Kanals through fraud and misrepresentation as the claim referred it was a bogus one.
He suggested that the case be referred to the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (General) Lahore Cantt for taking action.
7. Haji Ali Akbar also brought out the facts that according to the order of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons), Lahore, dated 15-10-1989, Khasras Nos.2211-2212 to 2217 comprising of area of 59K-14M owned by the Central Government stood earmarked for a graveyard but Khasras Nos. 2213, 2214, 2215 were also mutated in favour of Iftikhar-ud-Din. Khasra No,2212 was transferred to Feroze Khan on 26-7-1989 through mutation No,904 despite the facts that an appeal was already pending decision in the said Court.
8. Khasras Nos.1705,1720 to 1727, 1729 to 1732,1734, 1760, 1762 to 1764. And 1708 comprising 160K-15M were transferred to Yasin in compliance with the order dated 20-4-1989 of the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) while out of these Khasra Nos. 1708, 1731, 1708 and 1720 were mutated in favour of Sakhi Muhammad vide mutation No,906 and Khasra Nos.1722 and 1723 were transferred to Bundo vide mutation No, 883. The Addl: Commissioner (Cons) in a revision petition titled Haji Muhammad Sadiq. v. The State, etc. Had granted a stay order on 28-12-1988 in respect of Khasras Nos.2159, 2161 to 2164, 2152, 2133, 2184 and 2186. Out of these Khasras Nos. 2159 to 2163, 2152, 2184 and 2186 were transferred through mutation No,904 in favour of Feroze Din while Khasra No,21.33 was transferred through mutation No,905 in favourof Iftikhar-ud-Din. Moreover, most of the Khasras belonging to the Central Government were involved in these mutations and were in litigation.
9. The above facts were neither brought to the notice of the enquiry officer nor the D.L.R. In the light of these new developments, the D.L.R. Advised the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) vide memo No,1: 740/NTR -I, dated 31-124989 to proceed with the review proceedings regarding the said mutations. The Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) directed the Consolidation Officer City to review the mutations. In compliance with the order of the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) the Consolidation Officer, cancelled mutations No,882, 883,884,892,904,906,905, 982 and 932.
10. The D.L.R. In his comments reported vide his memo No,256/TR, dated 10-6-1990 that the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) was directed to proceed with the review proceedings and the said mutations were thus reviewed by the Addl: Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons), Lahore. In the circumstances the aggrieved party should have first preferred appeal before the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) for redressed of their grievances and thereafter if necessary, they should seek remedy from the this Court.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were condemned unheard. No notice was given to the petitioners by the D.L.R. Whereas according to the law, an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners should have been awarded. Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. He relied on PLD 1964 SC 410. Similarly the Addi: Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons) without going into the facts of the case and without hearing the petitioners in his turn ordered the Consolidation Officer for cancellation of the mutations. He further argued that the said mutations were attested after detailed enquiry by the D.L.R. And the same set of the officers reviewed their previous orders without any reason. He further contended that a judicial order could not be set aside on the executive side as held in so many rulings of the higher Courts. He added that against the petitioners' allotments no appeal was filed by any one. Ali Akbar had no locus standi to agitate against them. He had filed an appeal which was withdrawn later on.
Concluding his arguments he contended that the revision petitions may be accepted setting aside the orders of the D.L.R., Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) and Consolidation Officer, Lahore.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents argued in rebuttal that these revision petitions were preferred under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 whereas the cases related to bogus allotments. The D.L.R. Was not competent to pass any order in respect of the incorporation of the R.L.-II in the revenue record. He further argued that even the D.L.R. Was not authorised to hold an enquiry in respect of the said allotments because he was not a Notified Officer under the evacuee laws. The learned counsel maintained that learned Member (Cons) did not also have any jurisdication inthe present cases. He further contended that according to the orders of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) dated 15-10-1989 Khasras Nos. 2211-2212 to 2217 (59K-14M) owned by the Central Government stood earmark for a graveyard but the same were mutated in favour of Iftikhar-ud-Din. Khasra No,2212 was transferred to Feroze Khan on 26-7-1989 through mutation No,904 despite the fact that an appeal was already pending decision in the said Court.
Khasras Nos,1705, 1720 to 1727, 1729 to 1732, 1734, 1760, 1762 to 1764 and 1708 (169K-15M) were transferred to Yasin while out of these Khasras some were mutated in favour of Sakhi Muhammad vide mutation No,906 and some were transferred to Bundo vide mutation No,883, The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) in a revision petition titled Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. The State etc. Granted a stay order in respect of the land included in these mutations. As and when these facts were brought to the notice of the D.L.R. He without any hesitation directed the Collector (Cons) to review the mutations already attested in favour of the so called allottees. He further argued that mutation proceedings were not judicial proceedings and retied on PLD 1961 Kar.
53. Against the cancellation of mutations, the petitioners if they felt aggrieved, should have preferred their appeals under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act to the Commissioner. At the end he requested for the dismissal of the revision petitions.
13. Using the right of reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the record of the village was still witfi the Consolidation' Department, therefore, all the matters relating to the village were to be dealt with by the Consolidation Department.
14. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record. This revenue estate is still under consolidation because the consolidation record of rights has not been consigned to the record yet and therefore, revisions against mutations would lie to the hierarchy of Consolidation Department. The D.L.R. Was conferred powers of Collector (Cons) under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 vide Board of Revenue notification No,1705- 69/2299-F Dt: 13-5-1969 and revision against his order lies to learned Member (Cons). M/s Jan Muhammad. Etc. Submitted an application to the D.L.R. Requesting therein for getting allotment incorporated in the revenue record of the village Rai who directed the A.D.L.R. (Record-II) to examine the case. He, after detailed enquiry recommended incorporation of the petitioners' allotment and correction of record. The D.L.R. On 27-5-1989 referred the case to the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons), Lahore with the direction to correct the record under sections 42 to 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The Consolidation Officer attested mutation Nos. 884, 882, 883, 904, 905, 906, 932 and 892 with reference to the orders of the D.L.R. Transferring allegedly valuable Central Government land to petitioners. The D.L.R. Was competent to order for the correction of record but he was not Authorised, Officer in the matter relating to the, settlement. However, the Collector
(Cons) was under obligation to examinethe original files of the allottees and take action according to law but, he simply marked the letter of the D.L.R. To the Consolidation Officer for compliance.
According to the instructions contained in memo. No, 1624/78/554/R (L), dated 18-6-1978 issued by the Chief Settlement & Reh: Commissioner/Member (Revenue) prior permission from Chief Settlement & Reh: Commissioner/Member (Revenue) for incorporating of allotments in the revenue record was necessary but without obtaining prior permission from the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member (Revenue) the said allotments were incorporated in the revenue record through mutations. Later on, on the application of Haji Ali Akbar the D.L.R. Advised the Collector
(Cons) that after verification of the facts pointed out by All Akbar the mutations may be reviewed restoring the previous position but the Collector (Cons) neither verified the facts nor the petitioners were accorded due opportunity of being beard. No doubt the mutations were attested in violation of instructions of the Board of Revenue, Punjab firstly but rights had duly accrued to the petitioners and therefore, they should have been given an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners were decidedly and admittedly not given any opportunity of being heard by the Director of Land Records while making his order dated 31-124989. This order violated the principles of natural justice and is void. All subsequent orders of the Collector (Cons) and Consolidation Officer made in compliance of the aforesaid void order are also similarly void and of no legal consequence. I, therefore, accept all these revision petitions and remand the cases to the D.L.R. Punjab, Lahore, for fresh decision after hearing the parties.
' The orders in these cases were reserved and shall be communicated to the parties.