HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- These revision petitions are directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 6.11.1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Gujranwala Division, whereby he approved suo moto proposals submitted by the Collector (Consolidation).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate Chak Jano Kalan, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Consolidation Officer on 22.3.1983. The appeals of aggrieved right-holders were decided by the Collector (Cons) in due course. However, on 17.12.1985 some right-holders including Nazeer Ahmad moved an application before the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Gujranwala Division to the effect that Shamlat Deh and Charagah of their village had been distributed amongst are right- holders against entitlements. This application was marked to the ADC/Collector (Cons), Gujrat for necessary action and report, who on 3.3.1986 confirmed in his report that the Shamlat Deh and Charagah had not been distributed amongst the right-holders according to their entitlements.
Some right-holders had been given land more than their entitlement and considerable numbers of right-holders had been given less land. The Additional Commissioner (Cons) directed on 3.6.1986 to submit suo moto proposals for the correction of these defects. In revision No.2427/1985 titled 'Imam Din etc. Versus Roshan etc the Member (Cons) had separately ordered that suo moto proposals be framed for distribution of Shamlat Deh keeping in view the basic principle of consolidation. In compliance with the order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) as well as order dated 22.7,1986 of the Member (Cons), the Collector (Cons) on a report from the Consolidation Officer, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, submitted a joint suo moto proposal vide his office No. 2121 /RC, dated 27.10.1986 to the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Gujranwala Division. After due notice and proclamation, the Additional Commissioner (Cons) visited the village on 6.11.1986. He examined the record, heard the right-holders, considered the report dated 27-10.1986 of the Collector (Cons) and came to the conclusion that Shamlat Deh had not been distributed among the right-holders according to their entitlement. Some of the right-holders were deprived of their entitlement while others were unduly benefitted. Hg vide his impugned order approved the joint suo moto proposal leading to these revision petitions.
3. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned revision petitions as they are directed against a single impugned order and joints of law and facts are common.
4. Malik Manzoor Ahmad Khokhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in R.O.R.No. 963/1987, contended that ten scheme holders have come up in revision and ,the impugned order had affected more than 200 schemes. Quite a large number of the scheme-holders had availed their right of appeal or revision under the law and their cases could not have been taken up in suo moto revisional jurisdiction by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons) as held in PLD 1983 Revenue
11. The petitioners were not heard by the Additional Commissioner (Cons) and their presence was falsely assumed. For example, Bashir Ahmad of Scheme No.227/1 and 228 had died on 19.10.1985, much earlier than the date of the impugned order which is 6.11.1986. In support of his contention the learned counsel presented a copy of Bashir Ahmad's death certificate. Continuing, Ire pointed out that Nazir's schemes had been shown as 3,6,7 and 80 although scheme No.80 was Bibi's exclusive scheme and this Nazir was the beneficiary of the land taken from her.
5. Ch. Subhan Khan counsel for the petitioners in R.O.Rs No.1 366/1987,1387/1987 and 1370/1987 contended that under Member Board of Revenue's order dated 22.7.1986 only Shamlat land had to be fairly distributed. There was no kami and beshi in 71 Schemes affected by the impugned order which were not related to Shamlat either. The scheme holders of Schemes Nos. 105,106 and 107 were refugees and had received their land as such and had no connection whatsoever with Shamlat. But their schemes had still been touched. Class-I land was taken from them and instead they were given Class-II land. Nazar Muhammad petitioner in R.O.R.No./1366/1987 was owner of 10 kanals only but his holding was scattered over three squares. Naseeb Ali, petitioner in R.O.R.No. 1370/1987 was owner f 4 kanals 16 marlas only whereas he was given land in several pieces in square No.46 and 51. The petitioners were not present of the time when the impugned order was made and had no connection with Akhtar Ali, who was shown to be present on their behalf.
6. Ch. Faiz. Ahmad, counsel for the petitioners in R.O.R.No.2273/1988 , contended that suo moto proposal should have been prepared separately for each scheme. Any selective change fit the present order will effect all the khatas and the impugned order may, therefore, be set aside for framing the schemes afresh.
7. Syed Altaf Hussain, counsel for the petitioner in R.O.R.N0. 1542/1987, maintained that the petitioner had nothing to do with Shamlat land and had been deprived of 8 kanals and his revision petition was still pending before the Additional Commissioner (Cons).
8. Raja Muhammad Ayub, counsel for the respondents in R.O.R.N0. 1367/1987, maintained that the petitioner had always taken the ground that they were not heard although their presence was duly marked. The suo moto powers vested in the consolidation functionaries under the law could not be taken away and the impugned order may be upheld, especially as no loss had been caused to anyone.
9. One Nazar Muhammad Lambardar stated that the possession had been changed since the impugned order was made and too many improvements had been effected in the land. Great many complications would be caused by setting aside the impugned order.
10. I have heard the parties, perused the case record and have closely considered the arguments.
Almost all these revision petitions are time barred ranging from about 2 months to five months, which tends to support the petitioners 'contention that they were not present when the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons) had visited the village to decide the suo moto proposal. The death certificate of Bashir s/o Shera not only reinforces the petitioners' contention but also suggests that the attendance of the rightholders was marked in not too careful a manner.
Meticulous attention could not be paid by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons) himself to all the details in more than two hundred schemes. Discrepancies and defects are, therefore, bound to occur in any such order because each scheme could not have been individually taken up, scrutinized and decided in the presence of the parties. When time constraint is taken into consideration, it appears that all these cases could not have been decided in one day in 5 to 6 working hours with required degree of accuracy. The delay in submission of these revision petitions is, therefore, condoned.
11. My learned predecessor had deputed the Consolidation Officer (Hq) to enquire into the allegations of irregularities committed during the consolidation proceedings and processing of the suo moto proposal. Accordingly the Consolidation Officer (Hq.) submitted his report dated 11.10.1988 which partially substantiates the petitioner's and thus supports their case.
12. I have, however, also evaluated the pleas have taken up by the learned counsel for the respondents and Nazar Muhammad Lambardar. Setting aside the impugned order would again place the right holders of this revenue estate in a first and open a Pandora Box. An overwhelming majority of right-holders is apparently satisfied as only 10 revision petitions have been preferred against the impugned order. I would, therefore, remand only these listed revision petitions to the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Gujranwala Division, for fresh decision after hearing the parties with the specific direction that those petitioners shall not be entitled to any relief who have already availed their rights of appeal or revision. The relief to be given, if any, shall be restricted to the parties in these revision petitions only and more parties shall not be impleaded.
13. A copy of the consolidation Officer (Headquarters) dated 11.10.1988 shall also be forwarded to the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) to assist him in the disposal of these revision petitions.