' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 19-9-1989 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala Division whereby he set aside the (entire) consolidation scheme of the village Fattowal Sulehrian, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the Revenue Estate Fattowal Sulchrian, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot was confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 28-9-1986, M/s. Ghulam Rasul etc. Residents of the village moved an application before the Minister for Consolidation, Punjab which was forwarded to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) for report. The Additional Commissioner (C wits.) after visiting the spot and hearing the right-holders, submitted his report on 10-8-1988 pointing out there in certain irregularities and illegalities committed by the Consolidation Staff, with the recommendation that the consolidation scheme may be set aside. He was advised through letter No, 2279-88/1456-CH (P) dated 27-10-1988 by the Board of Revenue, Punjab to take action under section 13 of the Ordinance. In purs,uance of the direction, the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) heard the right-holders, and scrutinized the record. He came to the conclusion that the consolidation scheme was fraught with many illegalities and irregularities which could not be rectified through judicial process or suo motu action. He vide his impugned order set aside the consolidation scheme and ordered reconsolidation of the revenue estate.
Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the case was remanded by the Lahore High Court vide its order dated 30-9-1987 and it had to be decided by the Member, Board of Revenue. A report was consequently called from the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) by the Board of Revenue but instead of sending the report the officer assumed jurisdiction and proceeded to set aside the entire scheme. There were 771 right-holders, in the revenue estate and only 5 appeals were preferred by the aggrieved pers,ons against the confirmation of the scheme dated 28-9- 1986. This meant that vast majority of the right-holders, was satisfied with the consolidation scheme. The right-holders, were not deprived of their rights or entitlement. For the purposes of classification the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had relied on Ithasra Girdawari for the year 1985 which was not relevant for purposes of classification. Similarly no specified references to errors, or mistakes in Thak Bast had been given in the impugned order. The provisions of Musawada Tariqa Taqseem formulated by consensus of the right-holders, had not been violated.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained, in rebuttal, that no writ petition had ever been filed in this case and the firs,t application against the confirmation of the scheme had been made to the Board of Revenue. Majority of the people was dissatisfied with the confirmation of the scheme which contained many illegalities and irregularities and had violated provisions of "Musawada Tariqa Taqseem". Classification of the soil was wrongly established. Against one kanal of Class-I land the ratio was fixed out 6 kanals of Class-IV land which was again it the instructions on the subject. Due to widespread dissatisfaction the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had visited the village and stated that he would allow time to the aggrieved pers,ons to file appeal in case the scheme was not set aside. For this reason the aggrieved pers,ons did not prefer appeals before the Collector (Cons.) and even the 5 appeals preferred before the Additional Commissioner's visit remained pending and were never decided. The impugned order was the only.
(i) remedy as the defect: in the scheme could not be remedied without setting it aside.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. Although the impugned order itself is quite detailed and brings out illegalities, irregularities, excesses and shortcomings of the scheme yet a special checking of the revenue estate was undertaken under my orders, by the Consolidation Officer (Hqs), Board of Revenue, whose report dated 14-2-1990 was also placed on record. The latter report corroborates the impugned order in all its essential details. Its main features are that classification of land was capriciouly and selectively done as is evident from the following examples:- ' Nul Chahi, Chahi and Nian Chahi land in the village was to be classified as Class-I but it was not done in the following cases:- ' Khasras Nos.42 to 49, 53 etc. (total 113) were Chahi and 33 were Nul Chahi but they were distributed in Class-II.
' Khasras Nos.105, 212 etc. (total 34) were Chahi and 24 were Nul Chahi in,icind but they were distributed in Class-III.
' Khasras No,24, 37 etc. (total 15) were Chahi and 7 were Nul Chahi but the same were distributed in Class-I V.
(ii) Barani Awwal land was to be classified as Class-11 which was not done in the following cases:- ' Khasras No,350 etc. (total 160) "Barani Awwal" were distributed in Class-I, ' Khasras Nos.1, 2 etc. (total 229) were "Barani Awwal" but the same were distributed in Class-III.
' Khasras Nos.14, 15, 16 etc. (total 46) were "Barani Awwal" but the same were distributed in Class-IV.
(iii) "Barani" second class land was generally classified as Class-II, but soma: khasras numbers, were distributed in Class-I, Class-III and Class-IV.
(iv) Khasras No,1287 to 1290 were shown as orchard but distributed as Class-III land.
' From the frequency of foregoing objections it is evident that the classification of land was not carried out properly. The ratio of classification was also not fixed judiciously. In fact it appears, to be intended to benefit some right-holders, at the cost of others,.
(v) Deficiency was caused to a number of scheme-holders, as detailed below without any justification. Some of the examples are detailed below:- {{TABLE}} Scheme No, Deficiency.
K-M 1 3-0 8 2-9 9 1-11 14 1-12 32 2-3 43 11-16 46 1-8 113 2-17 125 3-3 137 0-12 165 0-16 166 0-15 190 1-16 229 2-14 272 0-16 K-M 302 1-1 304 1-10 311 2-0 103 1-0
(vi) Convers,ely a number of scheme-holders, were favoured with excess land over their entitlement. Some of the examples are given hereunder:--{{TABLE}} Scheme No, K-M Excess.
15 4-12 19 2-15 29 2-6 31 3-0 34 13-0 35,37 to 40 19-0 66 5-18 67 0-16 69 1-14 85 4-3 104 2-4 112 5-7 114 2-18 101 3-4 124 0-17 145 1-1 146 2-7 168 3-16 178 2-13 191 1-6 242 1-13 249-0-16 303 0-13 312 1-16
6. I have considered the reports and arguments. As regards the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) he has not committed any irregularity because under the Board of Revenue's Memo. No,2279-88/1456-CH (P) I, dated 27-10-1988, he was duly authorised to dispose of the matter under section 13 t)1 the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance and hence the impunged order does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. The defects corning to light in the impugned order and in the special inspection report of the Consolidation Officer (Hqs) are too numerous and glaring to be corrected through judicial process. In fact the scheme appears, to be full of incurable shortcomings and excesses at the whim of the consolidation authorities. It would be appropriate and desirable to initiate disciplinary action against the defaulting field officers,. In such circumstances there was little option but to set aside the entire scheme to rectify injustices done to the rightholders,. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the revision petition which is dismissed.