' Brief facts of the case are that Khasras Nos.1102/1 and 1102/2 situated in village Pagh, Tehsil Fateh Jang, District Attock were surrendered under Land Reforms. Subsequently Khasra No,1102/2 was allotted to Muhammad Fazal Haq etc. Respondents and Khasra No,1102/1 was allotted to Khan Mulkh etc. During consolidation operations Khasra No,1102/2 was converted into Khasra No,1394 and likewise 1102/1 was converted into 1390,1391,1393. According to the respondents the dimensions of old Khasra numbers were correct but during consolidation operations while carving out new numbers dimensions were wrongly changed and some area of new Khasra No,1394 was included in Khasra Nos.1390 etc. By that way the area of Khasra No,1394 was decreased. The respondents moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Attock for the correction of dimensions of the "Titimas". The Collector called for report from the lower functionaries and vide his order dated 12-2- 1988 directed the Revenue Officer to make the measurement at the-spot once again and in case it was proved that the entries were not correct then the correction be carried out through Sehat Intiqal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi Division who vide the impugned order dated 18-9-1988 dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition under section 164 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967,
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended in the written arguments that the order of the District Collector was passed behind their back and petitioners were condemned unheard. Hence the order of the District Collector was liable to be set aside in view of the law laid down in PLD 1970 Lahore 6. The impugned order is based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence on record.
The direction of the District Collector was to the effect that the Revenue Officer should carry out fresh demarcation at the spot but the mutations in dispute were sanctioned without carrying out any demarcation. The learned Additional Commissioner observed that the present dimensions if taken as correct, would result in enhancing the area which is incorrect. The southern side of Field No,1394 is still 99 karams and has not been reduced as mentioned in the impugned order. The respondents had filed a miscellaneous application after a period of 9 years whereas they should have preferred a proper appeal or revision under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance as held in PLD 1991 Revenue 1. It is prayed that the revision may be accepted and impugned order may be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained in rebuttal in the written arguments that the field numbers were changed during Consolidation and new numbers were created but the new numbers on the `Aks Shajra' did not correspond to the actual fields. When the respondents came to know of these wrong entries they filed an application before the District Collector which was accepted and correction was ordered through "Sehat Intiqal". The Collector was fully competent to order such a correction otherwise the respondents would have suffered a permanent loss as the southern side of Khasra No,1394 was reduced from 99 Karams to 72 Karams. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The order of the Collector dated 12-2-1986 was made after obtaining reports from field staff. It was recommended by the Tehsildar vide his note dated 3140-1987 and by the A.C. Attock vide his note dated 1.7-1-1988 that applicants (respondents) may be directed to seek remedy in the competent Court as the change had been made during Consolidation proceedings. The HVC to the D.C. Also proposed that a detailed report may be obtained on the measurement aspects. Yet the District Collector ignoring these proposals directed the correction through "Sehat Intiqal", after demarcation by the Revenue Officer, without assigning any reason and without hearing the concerned parties. The petitioners have therefore been condemned unheard and the District Collector's order is liable to be set aside on this score only.
5. The attention of the District Collector is drawn to the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance. The learned District Collector did not apply his mind to the point whether such a correction was warranted after confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate.
While framing and confirming the Scheme, the respective Wandas of the parties must have been proposed and confirmed with their consent and that the respondents could have objected to the short-fall if any at the appropriate time. In any case the remedy of appeal or revision was available to the respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner has also lost sight of these aspects of the case while making the impugned order and just referred to the demarcation of Field No,1389 without considering the case in its entirety and in the appropriate context.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the orders of the Collector dated 12-2-1988 and of the Additional Commissioner dated 18-9-1988 cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The case is remanded to DC/Collector, Attock for fresh decision after hearing the parties in the light of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law.