HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960, against the order dated 25.8.1987, of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) Sargodha Division, whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of village Sundral, Tehsil and District Khushab, was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by the Consolidation Officer on 29.7.1986. The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed an appeal with a delay of six months in the court of Collector (Cons), who, vide his order dated 29.4.1987, rejected it on the premises of limitation. This order was assailed in the court of Additional Commissioner (Cons), Sargodha Division, who, vide his impugned order, dismissed it on the same score. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Khasra No. 534/7 was under the petitioners' possession according to Fard Obaza. The Fard Qabza had been held to be doubtful by the Additional Commissioner(Cons.) but in case No.216/ACC/1987, the same court had held that it was in the possession of petitioner father Haji Sulatti Khan vide its order dated 17.12.1989. The re- distribution of the land was to be made on the basis of possession according to Tariqa Taqseem and, therefore the petitioners were entitled to this khasra number.
4. None of the respondents or their counsel was present on the date of hearing > Earlier, ex-parte proceedings had been ordered against respondents No. 3,4 and 5. The case was originally fixed for hearing on 28.3.1990 but it was decided to hear the cases pertaining to Faisalabad and Sargodha Divisions at Faisalabad in the public interest and the date was advanced to 27.1.1990. Notices were sent to the parties as well as their learned counsel. However, as has been noted, none was present on behalf of the respondents.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record and the sketch map produced by the Patwari. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the ADC/Collector(Cons) was dismissed on the point of limitation being time barred by about six months. The revision against the Collector (Cons)'s order was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons) upholding the Collector's order. The main contention of the petitioners is that Khasra No.534/7 was in their possession, pre-consolidation, which is not borne, out from the record. This Fard Qabza was prepared by the Consolidation Officer on 9.3.1985 during the pendency of a civil suit. An earlier Fard Obaza prepared in 1980 showed this field under the possession of one Sher Muhammad S/o Fateh Sher. However, be that as it may, the appeal before the ADC/Collector (Cons) was prefered by Ghulam Muhammad whereas the latter Fard Obaza showed that this khasra number was in the possession of Haji Sulatti Khan, father of Ghulam Muhamad. Ghulam Muhammad is a co-sharer in scheme No. 305 alongwith his three brothers, father and uncle Ali Muhammad. Haji Sulatti Khan had preferred an appeal against the confirmation of the scheme prior to Ghulam Muhammad's appeal but had not claimed khasra No.534/7. Under Section 11 of the ordinance an aggrieved person _can file only one appeal and obviously the appeal by Haji Sulatti Khan was preferred on his own behalf and on behalf of other co-sharers of Scheme No.305. Therefore, the right of appeal as far as this particular scheme is concerned had already been exhausted. Having availed that right of appeal the petitioners appear to be having second thoughts and^preferred another time- barred appeal on the pretext that Ghulam Muhammad being employee in the army was not in knowledge of the scheme. However, lack of knowledge on the part of other co-shares in the scheme was not there as is evident from the appeal filed by Jaji Sulatti Khan. Therefore, there was no reason to condone the delay or entertain the second appeal. I, under these circumstances, do not see any cause to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition.