' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 23-4-1985 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala Division, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners,.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the village Mianwal, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1981 under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The respondent Muhammad Sardar filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) with a delay of 2 months and 8 days who vide his order dated 21-2- 1984 accepted the same and made certain amendments in the wandas of the parties. He held in his order that the class of the area in the amendment was the same and the said area was adjacent to the parties' chaks but Hafiz Muhammad Inayat and Hafiz Muhammad Nawaz were not willing to accept the amendment as there was difference of quality in the land.
' The petitioners, assailed this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala Division who vide his impugned order rejected the appeal of the petitioners, holding that due to the amendments framed by the Collector (Consolidation) the shape of the plots of the parties had been made 'proper'. Therefore, no interference was called for. Hence this revision petition.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that respondent had filed an appeal which was time-barred to the extent of two months and eight days before the Collector (Consolidation).
However, it was accepted and consequential amendments were made in the respective schemes of the parties. The petitioners,' appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was dismissed.
The petitioners, were not originally impleaded as respondents in the appeal before the Collector (Cons.) preferred on 9-8-1981 and were impleaded after more than one year of the pendency of the appeal in that Court somewhere in 1983. This point was ignored by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner /Collector, (Consolidation) in his order dated 21-2-1984. Further that relief to present respondents was granted by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation) beyond their grounds of appeal. Rectangles Nos.198, 199 and 200 were adjacent to the village abadi and formed Nian area and were much valuable and the respondents were given area in Nian more than their entitlement in the consolidation operations. This was further enhanced in appeal by the Collector (Cons.). Convers,ely the petitioners, were thrown away from the Nian area and given inferior land. The impugned order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) did not mention any reason at all for dismissal of the revision petition preferred by the petitioners, Mst.
Aimna Bibi etc.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained, in rebuttal, that condonation of delay had duly been granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector. The petitioners, had entitlement in Rectangle No,200 but had managed to obtain more land than their entitlement in that Rectangle. The petitioners, had also entitlement in Rectangle No,220 and had, therefore, rightly been adjusted in that rectangle.
3. Exercising their right of reply the learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the petitioners, had no excess allocation in Rectangle No,200 over their entitlement and had been given 24 acres in Rectangle No,220 where they had entitlement of only 14 acres.
4. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the sketch map prepared by the Patwari. Pre- and Post-Consolidation entitlement of the parties in Rectangles Nos.200 and 201, which are adjacent to the village abadi, was also prepared by the Patwari, which is reproduced below:-
5. {{TABLE}} Name of Pre-Consolidation After Consolidation Due to parties Plots Land Plots Land Amendment Valuable Valuable Plots Land Valuable.
K-M Mst. Aimna 3 126-9 Bibi etc. Petitioners, Sardar 5 50-12 Muhammad Respondent No, 1 K-M 3 124-1 5 163-16 K-M 108-19 2 178-18 {{TABLE}} It is obvious that respondent Sardar Muhammad, who had pre-consolidation entitlement of 50K- 12M near abadi was given 163K-16M in the consolidation operations in this area. Still being dissatisfied he preferred an appeal which resulted in enhancement of his holding in this lucrative area by another 15K-2M. On the other hand the petitioners had a pre-consolidation entitlement of 126K-9M in the subject area and were given 124K-1M in consolidation operations but they were satisfied and did not prefer any appeal. However, as a result of the appeal their allocation there was reduced by 15K-2M which were given to the respondents. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation) in his order did not discuss at all the arguments advanced by the present petitioners and the sole argument advanced in that Court by the respondents was that they had been given inferior land in lieu of superior land. The learned Collector (Cons.) did not care to examine the entitlement of the parties nor was constrained to refer to the grounds of appeal before him. He also did not consider whether Aimna Bibi etc. (present petitioners) were a necessary party in that case as far as grounds of appeal of present respondents were concerned. Similarly the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and dismissed the petitioners' appeal on the only ground that by the amendments made by the ADC/Collector (Cons.) "the shape of parties' plots had become proper". He never considered the question of entitlement and to him shape of the plots appears to be overriding consideration in consolidation operations as against a person's rights.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners had received more land than their entitlement in Rectangle No.200, it is observed that entitlement in a consolidation scheme has to be considered in toto in a revenue estate with special reference to more valuable land. The main block of Muhammad Sardar respondent's pre-consolidation holding was situated in Rectangles Nos.126 and 127 which he managed to obtain in consolidation operations in Rectangles Nos.182 and 199 etc. which is far nearto the village abadi. His previous holding was at least one mile or 5/1-2 Rectangles from the village abadi which is now just at a distance of 1/1-2 Rectangle. The principle which is enunciated 'for evaluating the petitioners' entitlement in Rectangle No.200 by the learned counsel for the respondents, if applied to Sardar Muhammad will certainly not yield any favourable results to him.
8. In view of the foregoing I do not see any justification in the orders of the Courts below. The revision petition is accepted and the orders of both the Courts i.e. ADC/Collector (Cons.) dated 21- 2-1984 and the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) dated 23-4-1985 are set aside as far as they relate to the petitioners and the position of the petitioners scheme as confirmed by the Consolidation Officer is restored.
AA./422/RRevision accepted.