HAFEEZULLAH JSHAQ, MEMBER.-- This revision petition is directed u/s 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 27.8.1986, of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Gujranwala Division, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the revenue estate Hameedpur Kalan, Tehsil and District Gujranwala was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Ordinance, ibid by the Consolidation Officer on 30.9.1979. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal with a delay of 5 years 7 months and 8 days in the court of the Collector (Cons), Gujranwala who vide his order dated 15.6.1985 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the direction to submit his report after examining the record and giving them an opportunity of being heard. Respondent No. 2 assailed this order in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) in appeal who vide his order dated 14.4.1986 accepted it holding that the Collector (Cons) had no jurisdiction to hear even the case as the Collector (Cons) had already passed his order on 20.8.1979 about the same parties at the time of 'Jaiza' of the Consolidation Scheme of the village. The Addl. Commissioner (Cons) while setting aside the Collector's order held that if the petitioner may challenge the order of the Collector (Cons) dated 20.8.1979 in his court.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector (Cons) dated 20.8.1979 in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), who vide his impugned order rejected the appeal of the petitioner holding that the land in dispute comprising of Khasra No. 1171 measuring 6 kanals was previously held by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 in equal shares. The Collector (Cons) had rightly accommodated them according to their previous entitlement allocating 3 kanals to the petitioner and 3 kanals to the respondents. No injustice was done to the petitioner, therefore, the appeal was not tenable. Hence this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was not a speaking order in so far it does not show that Khasra No. 1171- old (966-new) which was owned and possessed by the petitioner pre-consolidation and on which the petitioner had his residence and haveli, had been returned to him or not. The petitioner had been given khasra No. 1322/1306 by the Collector (Cons)'s order; which was at a distance of two miles from the village, against the principles of consolidation. Therefore, his previously owned area i.e. Present khasra No. 966. May be returned to him. The petitioner held his land in one plot- preconsolidation which had been scattered in four plots. Against his entitlement of 18K-2M he had been given only 13K-18M and Khasra No. 966 had been double allotted. It was asserted that the petitioner was still in possession of the land in dispute as was evident from Local Commission's report dated 9.8.1986.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained that the petitioner had been given him full and correct entitlement and his appeal before the Collector (Cons) was barred by time by more than four years. There was no haveli on the disputed land according to khasra girdawari. The petitioner had been given all his land near the village and the revision may therefore be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as produced by the Patwari and the pre and post consolidation sketch map. The petitioner had a pre-consolidation entitlement of 15K-2M of Class-I land and has been given 14K-2M after deducting 7 marlas for common purposes. Thus he has a shortfall of 13 marlas in his entitlement although his scheme No. 140 shows that he has been given his full entitlement. There is a note on the scheme to the effect that vide Collector (Cons)'s order dated 20.8.1979 Khasras Nos. 927 and 934 had been cancelled and 1306/1322 (1K-12M) had been given to him. According to Khatauni Ishtimal old Khasra No. 1171 (new 966) was evenly divided between the parties and the petitioner had a possession over 3 kanals. However, the grievance of the petitioner regarding shortfall in entitlement is substantiated because there is a decrease of 13 marlas in his post consolidation holding. According to instructions kami and beshi to the extent of 10 marlas can be ignored. The kami of 13 marlas in a small holding of 15K-2M is certainly unreasonable. The entitlement of Fateh Muhammad respondent was 114K-5M in terms of Class-I against which he received 111K-10M with a decrease of 6 marlas at scheme No. 142. Muhammad Yousaf, Respondent at Scheme No. 144 against his entitlement of 31K-18M received 32K of Class-I land. Thus it is apparent that the petitioner has not received a fair treatment. Under these circumstances the revision petition succeeds; the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons), Gujranwala Division for fresh decision and meeting the entitlement of the petitioner according to rules.