HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- These revision petitions are directed u/S 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 22.10.1987 of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur Division, whereby he accepted the revision petitions of the present respondents.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that the consolidation scheme of village Mehmood Mehtam, Tehsil Ahmedpur Scharqia, District Bahawalpur was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the C.O.
On 28.9.1985. The respondents feeling aggrieved preferred appeals separately in the court of Collector (Cons) with a delay of 1 month and 11 days which were rejected vide order dated 22.6.1986. Qaim Bakhsh successfully assailed this order in revision petition in the court of Addl: Commissioner (Cons) who vide his impugned order held that during the consolidation operations Qaim Bakhsh was allocated less land than his entitlement to the extent of 32K-12M residual held by him. He made certain amendments in the schemes of the parties. Hence these revision petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the consolidation schemes of the respective parties were confirmed with their consent. The appeals were duly dismissed by the Addl: Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons). However, the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) amended the schemes of the parties vide his impugned order by advancing the date of hearing from 4.11.1987 to 22.10.1987 during the subsistence of stay order dated 21.10.1987 of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. The Addl: Commissioner (Cons) was due to retire from service on 24.10.1987 and decided the cases with unseemly haste. Vide the impugned order the shortfall of 20K-12M has been caused to Ghulam Qadir etc. Petitioner, while Khasra No. 404/10/12(8K) was illegally withdrawn from the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf, which was previously possessed by him. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
4. The respondents, present in person, stated that the impugned orders had been correctly passed and the petitioners had absented themselves deliberately from the court when the impugned order was passed.
5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the record produced by the Patwari (Cons) and pre and post consolidation sketch map prepared by him. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners had applied to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, for transfer of the case titled "Ahmed Ali. etc. Versus Muhammad Yousaf etc.", pending in the court of Addl: Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur Division, due to the reason that the date of hearing i.e. 4.11.1987 had been advanced without notice to 22.10.1987. The learned Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division thereupon issued a status quo order and adjourned the consideration of the application to 29.10.1987. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Khera has categorically stated at the bar before me that he delivered the status quo order himself in the concerned court.
However, the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) proceeded with the' case and disposed them of vide the impugned orders.
6. Apart from the unsavoury circumstances surrounding these cases it is also evident that scheme No.263 has several co-sharers including Qaim Bakhsh. The Addl: Commissioner (Cons) however, made the impugned order only showing Qaim Bakhsh entitlement out of the joint scheme. By virtue of this amendment the number of parties plots was increased as follows:- Name of the rightholder Numbers of plots.
Pre Cons Post Cons. Post Cons. After amendment.
1) Ghulam Qadir etc. Scheme. No.224. 11 5 8 2) Qaim Bakhsh, Scheme No.263 15 25 31 3) Muhammad Yousaf, Scheme. No.239 7 13 15 A perusal of the sketch map shows that not only the number of plots have increased but these have also been scattered which is offensive to the principles of consolidation. Thus the impugned order, besides being apparently motivated, has failed to meet the objectives of consolidation and hence cannot be sustained. The revision petitions, therefore, succeed; the impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur Division for fresh decision after hearing the parties and in accordance with the law and instructions on the subject.
7. The orders were reserved for examination of the record and shall now be communicated to the parties. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.