HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.-This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order dated 14.3.1988 of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons), whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village Niaz Beg, Tehsil and District Lahore was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 29.9.1977. One Pir Muhammad filed a time barred appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons), Lahore against Nazar Hussain son of Fazal Hussain, Nazeer Begum were of Jalal Din, Muhammad Azam son of Mehraj Din and Abdul Ghafoor son of Faiz Bakhsh who vide his order dated 22.9.1981 decided the case in terms of mutual compromise arrived at between the parties and the Consolidation Officer was directed to implement the same. The Consolidation Officer however referred the case back to the Collector
(Cons) pointing out that it was necessary to implead right-holders other than those who were parties to the case in order to given effect to his order dated 22.9.1981. The Collector (Cons) approved the proposal on 13.4.1982 and the Consolidation Officer impleaded Mst. Parveen Irshad were of Irshad Ali Shah and Irshad Ali Shah, respondents, as a part alongwith other persons. He vide his order dated 6.5.1982 withdrew Khasra Nos. 4148, 4149-min measuring one kanal from the wanda of the respondent No.1 and in lieu thereof Khasra No.4 measuring one kanal six marlas after taking away from the petitioner No. 2 & other was given the respondent No. 1. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6.5.1982 was challenged by Irshad Ali Shah respondent No.1 in the court of the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons) who vide his order dated 5.4.1983 set aside the said order and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. During the hearing of the case in the court of the Addl: Deputy Commissioner (Cons), the Consolidation Officer gave effect to his order dated 6.5.1982 through sanctioning mutation No.15989 in favour of Nazeer Begum etc. In respect of 1 kanal 19 marls land from field No.6566 who subsequently mutated a part of this field number in favour of the present petitioner No.1 vide mutation No. 15990 attested on 2.6.1982.
3. The order of the Collector (Cons) dated 5.4.1983 was assailed in appeal as well as in revision petition in the court of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) and learned Member (Cons) but both the appeal and revision petition were rejected by upholding the Collector's order dated 5.4.1983.
4. The Consolidation Officer decided the case on 20.11.1986. He held in his order that sale mutation No.5893 from Nazar Hussain in favour of Nazeer Begum were of Lai Din alias Kalay Khan, Muhammad Azam with equal share vendees about old Khasra No. 4145, Jadeed Khasra No.6566 measuring 1 kanal 19 marlas was rejected on 25.10.1980. On the basis of said mutation which had already been rejected second mutation No.13403 was incorrectIy attested on 7.5.1981. Both the mutations were approved after its review on 27.8.1986.
5. Mutation No. 15989 was attested on 2.6.1982 on the basis of Consolidation Officer's order dated 6.5.1982. On the basis of mutation No. 15989, sale mutation No. 15990 was attested on 2.6.1982 while the original base for sanctioning the above mentioned mutations i.e. Order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6.5.1982 has already been set aside by the Collector (Cons) vide his order dated 5.4.1983. He recommended review of the above mentioned two mutations and directed the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor to get sanctioned his mutation afresh on the basis of his registered deed and on the basis of mutation No.5893.
6. The petitioners preferred an appeal in the court of the Collector (Cons.) who vide his order dated 8.8.1987 accepted it. He held in his order that mutation Nos. 5893 and 13403 were attested before 27.8.1986 and mutation Nos. 15989 and 15990 were also attested in favour of Abdul Ghafoor, therefore, the order of the Consolidation Officer to review the said mutation was against the remand order dated 5.4.1983. He set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.11.1986.
7. The respondents preferred an appeal before the Addl: Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his impugned the same. He held in his order that admittedly the respondent was not a party to the original case, which was decided through compromise between the parties. The respondent No.1 was involved and impleaded, though with permission of the Collector before the Consolidation Officer, without any legal justification. The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 2.6.1982 sanctioning mutation No. 15989 through which field Nos. 4148 and 4149 measuring one kanal withdrawn from the khata of the respondent No. 1 was thus void ab-initio, but the Consolidation Officer, in any case recommended recall of this mutation vide his order dated 20.11.1986, after the case was again remanded to him by the Collector (Cons.) on an appeal by Mst. Parveen Irshad.
The Collector (Cons.) in passing his order dated 8.8.1987 had clearly no basis in law in refusing review of mutation No. 15989 and subsequent sale mutation No. 15990. The order of the Consolidation Officer sanctioning mutation No. 15989 resulting in withdrawal of the two Khasra numbers is clearly illegal, since the respondent was never a party to the original case and the compromise decree in that case could never bind or affect the wanda of the respondent in any way. Hence this revision petition.
8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. I had filed an appeal before th6 ADC (C)/Collector (Consolidation) on 5.4.1983 which was remanded to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to decide the case afresh. The petitioners thereupon went into a revision which was rejected. Their next revision petition before the Board of Revenue was also rejected on 17.1.1985, which meant that the remand order stood intact. However, the Consolidation Officer, instead of deciding the Consolidation issues, took a different track and decided the mutations. The petitioners, appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) was accepted. Respondent No.I thereupon went into appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) but made his were Mst. Parveen Irshad a petitioner at this stage. She was never a party in the first round of litigation up to the Board of Revenue and became a party in the second round at Additional Commissioner's level. It has further been maintained by the petitioner that his house is on Khasras No. 6554 to 6559, measuring 22 marlas, and that some persons who were party to compromise were not represented in litigation such is Fir Mohammad son of Waris, Nazar Hussain and Mst.
Sardaran etc. It has been prayed that the impugned order being based on conjectures should be set-aside.
9. In reply thereto, it has been maintained by the respondants that in the Scheme, old Khasra No: 4149 (new 6557/2), measuring 1 kanal and 14 marlas, was owned by Mst. Parveen Irshad. No appeal was preferred against Mst. Parveen Irshad's scheme and Mst. Parveen Irshad's Ali Shah were not a party to the compromise which was a collusive one. Mst. Parveen Irshad's number was disturbed in the consequent modifications. Mian Abdul Ghafoor, petitioner, had purchased land after confirmation of the Scheme on 8.2.1981 through registered deed on the basis of which mutation No. 15990 was attested on 2.6.1982. All mutations are based on Consolidation Officer's order dated 6.5.1982. It has been maintained that since the petitioner had purchased land after confirmation, he was entitled only to the Khasra number which he had purchased.
10. I .Have considered the arguments and perused the case record. A significant feature of the protracted litigation is that the petitioner, Mian Abdul Ghafoor, had purchased 15 marlas of land comprising Khasra No. 4154 (old), new No. 6566), from Nazir Begum etc, through registered sale deeds No. 26411 and 13622 dated 8.2.1981 and 8.7.1961. On 8.2.1981 the vendors were not Owners of the said Khasra numbers and the Consolidation Officer made amendment on 6.5.1982 showing the said Khasra number in the name of Mst. Nazir Begum for reasons known to him. Most probably Nazir Begum etc., concealed the fact of alienation from the Consolidation authorities. Under such circumstances, they were not competent to enter into compromise regarding the land alienated by them. The petitioner No. 1 has no right to agitate a Consolidation matter since he acquired land after the confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme. He can agitate his right to the extent of the specific khasra number which he had purchased from Mst. Nazir Begum etc, and his contention that he stepped into their shoes in not tenable because if this reasoning is accepted then there will be no end to amendments in the Consolidation Schemes. Nazir Begum etc, extinguished their right to agitate this matter in Consolidation after alienation of this khasra number to Mian Abdul Ghafoor. Secondly since Parveen Irshad etc, were not parties in original case which ended on a compromise, therefore, the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) on this point is correct that withdrawal of her two khasra numbers vide mutation No. 15989 by the Consolidation Officer was unjustified. I therefore do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the revision is accordingly dismissed.