' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 15-2-1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Rawalpindi Division, whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the village Multan Khurd, Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Consolidation Officer on 30-6-1981. The respondents Mst. Shahjehan etc. Feeling aggrieved filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) who vide his order dated 15-5-1985 accepted it. Their contention was that an area of 2 Kanals out of old Khasra No,1862 (new 2517) was in their possession without rent (Bashrah Malkan Bila Lagan) but this area was not given to respondents during the consolidation operations. The Collector (Cons.) found that previous Khasra No,1862 measuring 92K-10M was under the Hissadari possession of Sultan Khan etc. In the year 1936-37.
Afterwards in the registers, Haqdaran Zamin 1940-41, 1945-46, 1950-51 and in 1954-55 Sultan Khan etc. Were recorded Hissadars, while in cultivation column Ghulam Rubani was a tenant in possession without rent over an area of 2 Kanals. In the R.O.R. 1958-59 the entry of "Bila Lagan" of Ghulam Rubani was omitted inadvertently, therefore, in the consolidation operations the respondents' Khata was not made and out of the said land 1K-5M was allocated to the petitioner and the remaining 15 Marlas were allocated to the right-holders, (Sultan Khan etc). As the said entry was omitted inadvertently, therefore, the Collector (Cons.) corrected the record. He withdrew Khasra No,2517(1K-5M) from the petitioner in lieu of Khasra No,7835/1 measuring 1K-5M. This order was assailed by the petitioner in revision petition in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his impugned order rejected it holding that he has already decided the points in an appeal titled "Sultan Khan etc. v. Mst. Shahjehan etc." (Appeal No,156/85).
3. Some of the respondents were present in pers,on or represented through counsel on various dates of hearing. Ex parte proceedings were ordered against some of them from time to time. All of them, however, absented on 26-8-1990 and therefore they were proceeded ex parte.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was co-owner with the respondents. The consolidation scheme was confirmed on 30-6-1981 with the consent of the parties. However, the respondents preferred a time-barred appeal in 1984. The Collector (Cons.) accepted the appeal but no reason was given for condonation of delay. The order was made ex parte while remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer. In the light of report of the Consolidation Officer the Collector (Cons.) made amendments in the schemes of the parties. The respondents' case was based on the point that she held the land in dispute bila jam. This point was never examined. No entry of bila lagan can be made in the Revenue Record without a mutation and therefore the conslidation staff had correctly ignored the illegal entry of bila lagan. The land is dispute came to the petitioner through inheritance from Ghulam Rubani who was husband of the respondent Shahjahan and uncle of the petitioner. The petitioner's entitlement was 1K-5M which should be given to him.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The petitioner's contention that the Collector (Cons.) had taken ex parte proceedings against him is correct to the extent of remand of the case to the Consolidation Officer for framing a proposal. However, the petitioner was represented through his son Muhammad Tariq Naeem when the Conslidation Officer visited the spot for verification of the position on 16-1-1984. He was represented through Mr. Khalish Hamdani, Advocate before the Collector (Cons.) when the order dated 15-5-1985 was made. The Collector (Cons.)'s order was made after verification of possession on the spot. He found that the entry of bila lagan in the record was not recorded inadvertently and there was no mutation regarding giving up or transfer of possession from the respondents to the petitioner. The Collector (Cons.), therefore, reached the conclusion that the previous long-standing entries of bila lagan should stand in the record and consequently old Khasra No,1862-min (1K-5M) was restored to the respondents. On appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) the relevant record was again examined at some length 'and again it was found that no mutation for extinguishing the possession of respondents bila lagan had been sanctioned and this piece of land contained many shops and houses. The occupants of those shops and houses have clearly stated during the visit of the Consolidation Officer on 16-1-1984 that they were paying rent to Shahjahan respondent. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.), therefore, upheld the order of the Collector (Cons.).
6. A perusal of the record reveals that old Khasra No,1862 consisted of Shamlat in the record of rights 1936-37 and entries of bila lagan appeared in the record of rights 1940-41 and continued till 1954-55. During the cours,e of his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to put forward the basis on which the long standing entries of bila lagan were extinguished in the R.O.R. {{URDU TEXT}}and how can the petitioner benefit therefrom. The petitioner obviouslicannot benefit from a mistake committed in the revenue record. I, therefore, do not see any merit in the revision petition which is dismissed. The orders, in this case were reserved and shall 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.