HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.-- This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 9.1.1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Sargodha Division, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village Sundral, Tehsil and District Khushab, was confirmed under Section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 29.7.1986. The respondents, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons) with a delay of 1 month and 18 days, who, vide his order dated 25.3.1987, rejected it holding that the path in dispute, was proposed on 19.5.1979 at the time of framing Musawada Scheme but was taken away on 2.4.1985 and on appeal was restored by the Collector
(Cons) on 6.5.1985. Khasras Nos. 533/4/1, 534/7/2 were neither in the name of the respondents in "Fard Qabza" nor these were reserved for water supply. This order was assailed in the court of Additional Commissioner (Cons), Sargodha Division, who, vide his impugned the revision and amended the wandas of the parlies. He held in "his order that it was in the interest of justice-and welfare of the village that water supply scheme should be given land at this site. The alternate land which had been given to the petitioners was of the same quality and near Abadi deh and their plots will not be increased by this arrangement. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order based on the presumption that Khasra No. 533/4-min was to be used for village water supply, .Which was not the case. In support of the contention the petitioners produced photocopies of Mentos Nos. 562/K dated 17.5.1989 and 2719/Public dated 1.11.1988, from the Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering Sub-Division, Khushab addressed to the Chairman, Union Council No. 14, Sundral, District Khushab and Mr. Muhammad Akram s/o Haji Sullati resident of village Sundral, respectively, to the effect that the water scheme of the village was to be based on tubewell to be installed near the bank of river Jhelum and there was no proposal for construction of tanks anywhere.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, in rebuttal, maintained that the subject khasra number was neither previously owned nor possessed by the petitioners. This was owned, pre-consolidation, by Slier Muhammad s/o Fateh Slier and Muhammad Hassan s/o Ghulam jillani and was held by them. This land was kept for Rafa-i-Aama in the consolidation scheme but the petitioners wanted to obtain this valuable area without any entitlement to the detriment of the common good of the villagers. Further that according to Tariqa Taqseem the area of Rafa-i-Aama was to be consolidation on the advice of the members of the Advisory Committee, and, therefore, khasras Nos. 533/4(4K) and 534/7(4K) had been consolidated and reserved for Rafa-i-Aama, near the hospital established over khasras No.534/4, 5, 6, 7, (16 Kanals).
5. 1 have considered the arguments and perused the case record and the sketch map produced by the Patwari. It is evident that the subject khasra number was neither owned nor possessed by the petitioners but were given to them in the consolidation operations in violation of Tariqa, Taqseem which provided for consolidating the land for Rafa-i-Aama in the village on the advice of the Advisory Committee. Although the disputed land is not required for the water supply scheme, which is yet to be undertaken as can be inferred from the Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering letter referred to in para 3 above, but this land, at sometime in the future, can be used for some other public purpose such as girls or boys school, maternity centre, industrial home etc. Thus collective good, as approved in Tariqa Taqseem should override the individual benefit of the petitioners especially when they had no entitlement to it having neither owned nor possessed this land prior to consolidation. I, therefore, do not sec any illegality or impropriety or infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.