' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation.Of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 28-34989 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) Gujranwala Division, whereby he rejected the revision of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate Jeenowali, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala was confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 30-9-1960. The petitioners feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal in the Court of the Collector (Cons), who accepted it and made up the deficiency of the petitioners to some extent. The respondent No,1 preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional Commissioner
(Cons) who vide his order dated 18-8-1987 remanded the case to the Collector (Cons) who in pursuance of the remand order examined the record and heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were given less land than their entitlement to the extent of 7 Kanals 18 Marlas in terms of Class-I but overall they were given an excess of 195 Kanals 17 Marlas in the consolidation operations. He held that no injustice was done to the petitioners and he restored the original consolidation scheme vide his order dated 15-6-1988. The petitioners assailed this order in revision petition in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) who vide his impugned order dismissed it holding that the petitioners had failed to prove their deficiency. After 28/29 years there was no justification to amend the consolidation scheme. Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a shortfall of 19 Kanals 12 Marlas or 15 Kanals 7 Marlas in the entitlement of the petitioners as held by various officers and both the Courts below had wrongly held that there was no short-fall. The petitioners had received 676 Kanals against the stated total of 687 Kanals 12 Marlas during consolidation and thus there was a short-fall of more than 10 Kanals. Khasra No,451 (9K-18M) had been mentioned twice in the scheme of the petitioners causing a further short-fall. The petitioners' Class-I land had been withdrawn and against that they had been given area near the border of Mauza Khewaywali which was of inferior quality and that the delay of 4 days in lodging the revision petition may be condoned as there was short-fall in their entitlement.
4. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the pre and post consolidation sketch map prepared by the Patwari. The petitioners had a pre-consolidation entitlement of all categories of land of 471. Kanals 1 Marla, which in term of Class-I came to 416 Kanals 1 Marla as follows:- {{ TABLE TEXT}} Class-I 346K-16M Class-II 85K-09M Class-III 10K-07M Class-IV 28K-14M Total: 471K-06M ' The number of their pre-consolidation plots was 25. As against this entitlement they have received as follows:- Class-I 213K-13M Class-II 162K-01M Class-III 18K-03M Class-IV 283K-15M Total: 677K-12M ' The number of plots has been reduced to two in the consolidation scheme.' Thus there is a Baishi of 206K-6M. The learned counsel contended that in terms of Class-I this land came to 401K-15M and thus there was a short-fall of 14K-6M.
5. A perusal of the sketch map shows that the petitioners received their entitlement in large compact blocks mostly in the area where they had no pre-consolidation entitlement which means that they must have exercised their choice rather 'intelligently' and thus they were able to maximize their holding by almost 50%. It is interesting that they are still not satisfied and are trying to raise technical issue of quantity of land in terms of Class-I. I am afraid that this argument is entirely tendentious and of no help to the petitioners at this stage and time. The petitioner No,1 is a retired revenue officer and he seems to have used his knowledge of the law and procedure to his fullest advantage even against the basic objective of the consolidation law which is not intended to increase the holdings of some rightholders in a revenue estate and to encourage concentration of land in such persons, reasonable adjustments according to Darjabandi notwithstanding. The present case transgresses the principle of reasonable adjustment and has given more than fair advantage to the petitioners. There is no irregularity or illegality in the orders of the Courts below. It has been correctly held by the Additional Commissioner (Cons) that there is no justification for re- opening the matter after thirty years of the confirmation of the scheme. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.