HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, I960, against the order dated 22.10.1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur Division, whereby he accepted the Revision petition of the respondent No. 1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate Mahmood Mehtam, Tehsil Ahmadpur Sharqia, District Bahawalpur was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Consolidation Officer on 28.9.1985. The respondent No.1 feeling aggrieved filed an appeal with a delay of 1 month and 11 days in the court of Collector (Cons) who vide his order dated 22.6.1986 rejected it on the premise of limitation. This order was successfully assailed by respondent No. 1 in revision petition in the court of Additional Commissioner (Cons). His contention regarding deficiency was not borne out from the record although the Additional Commissioner (Cons) gave khasra No. 404/6/18 measuring 8 kanals to him by withdrawing it from the petitioner due to formers previous possession. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the consolidation schemes of the respective parties were confirmed with their consent and the ADC/Collector (Cons) vide order dated 22.6.1986 had rightly rejected the appeal of the respondents. However, the Additional Commissioner (Cons) amended the Schemes of the parties, vide his impugned order by advancing the date of hearing from 4.11.1987 to 22.10.1987 during the subsistence of stay order dated 2L10.1987 of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. The AdditionalCommissioner (Cons) was due to retire on 24.10.1987 and he was in undue haste to decide these cases. The area included in the wanda of the petitioner was neither owned nor possessed by him. It was prayed that the impugned order may be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, in the written argument, maintained that the impugned amendment by the Additional Commissioner (Cons) had been correctly made because Khasra No. 404/6/18(8 kanals) was owned and possessed by the respondents preconsolidation in which they had also a residential house and a mosque. However, this field, contained 40 datepalm and one mango trees. The respondents were not heard when the scheme was confirmed and Register Scheme did not contain the signatures or thumb impression of anyone of them. Khasra No. 404/6/18(7 kanals 12 marlas) had been decreed in favour of the answering respondents by the civil court and therefore it could not have been allocated to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments, perused the case record as well as the record produced by the patwari and the pre and post consolidation sketch map. Bakht Ali respondent is one of the co- sharers in Scheme No. 268 but the Additional Commissioner (Cons) made the amendment to the extent of his share in the Scheme only which is legally and procedurally not correct. The number of plots of the parties also seem to have increased at every stage. Muhammad YousaPs plots increased from 7 pre-consolidation to 13 post consolidation and then to 15 after the impugned amendment. Bakhat Ali's total entitlement in Scheme No. 268 is 10 kanals 19 marlas and thtf number of plots is 78. The scatter or dispersal of these plots is in gross violation of the principles of consolidation and fails to meet the objectives of the consolidation law. The impugned order in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as supported by the record seems to have been motivated and even tarnished.
6. The upshot of the discussion is that the revision petition succeeds; and impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Cons) for fresh decision after bearing the parties in accordance with law and instructions.
7. The orders were reserved for examination of the record and written arguments and shall now be communicated to the parties.