' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 13-7-1986 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons). Bahawalpur Division whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate Mangloti, Tehsil Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 by the Consolidation Officer on 24-3-1983. The petitioners feeling aggrieved filed an appeal under section 11 of the Ordinance in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons.) who wide his order dated 17-1-1984 rejected it holding that the land asked for had not been in possession of the petitioners previously. Moreover, the petitioners failed to implied necessary parties. The petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who vide his impugned order rejected it. He held in his order that the petitioners obtained possession of the allocated land through warrant of possession and they pledged their land to procure loan. One of the petitioners alienated some land allocated to him during the consolidation operations to his son through gift. This conduct of the petitioners bars them to come in revision. There are numerous rulings that such a conduct is waiver for any future agitation on the part of the petitioners. The consent of the petitioners is also proved in view of the fact that Yar Muhammad a joint-holder has not come as a party with them. The petitioners were not in possession of the land they now claimed. The quality of the land assigned to them is Class-I and their entitlement has been fully met. Hence this revision petition.
3. The following averments were made by the learned counsel for the petitioners:-
(i) That the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) did not consider all the contentions made by the petitioners.
(ii) That the learned lower Courts had erred in holding the petitioners' conduct after consolidation regarding mortgaging of land with the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan for a tractor loan agaithe petitioners.
(iii) That the learned lower Courts did not consider that the consent of Yar Muhammad respondent, a co-sharer of the petitioners was meaningless as he held only 10 Marlas as against petitioners' share of 853 Kanals.
(iv) That the petitioners' valuable lands, situated in Mubarakpur and orchards were not given to them and instead they were given scattered pieces of land at different places increasing the number of plots to 14 and that the petitioners entitlement of 853 Kanals was reduced to 832 Kanals 6 Marlas.
4. Elaborating the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) to the effect that the petitioners received possession of Wandas through warrant of possession, was based on conjectures. The mortgage of land by the petitioners did not disturb any specific field numbers and only mortgaged the shares. Similar was the case with the gift of land by Haji Manzoor Ahmad to his sons. Yar Muhammad respondent was never appointed as attorney to act on behalf of the petitioners and his share in the joint khata was insignificant and he acted due to mala fide reasons against the interest of the petitioners and that the consolidation authorities had committed an illegality in partitioning the joint khata without the petitioners' consent.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, in rebuttal, contended:-
(i) That this revision was directed against the concurrent finding of Collector (Cons.) and Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and hence was not maintainable as held in PLD 1964 W.P. (Rev.) 107 (h) and R.O.R. No,2188/1985 decided on 28-1-1987.
(ii) That new grounds have been raised in the second revision which had not been taken up before the Courts below.
(iii) That the number of respondents has been increased at every stage. In the first appeal before the ADC/Collector (Cons) only 9 persons were impleaded as respondents and the number was raised to 66 persons as respondents in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur and the number has further been increased to 81 and in the present revision petition it again raised to 91.
(iv) That the petitioners have mortgaged, alienated and sold the land given' to them in their Wandas and as such they cannot claim fresh consolidation in the village and that the possessions of Wandas have already been changed.
(v) That the petitioners have demanded those khasra numbers which were neither owned nor possessed by them.
(iv) That the petitioners have challenged scheme No,293 whereas they were also co-sharers in schemes Nos.98, 123 and 331 which have not been assailed which implies that they were in knowledge of consolidation proceedings throughout.
6. The parties also placed on record detailed written arguments supported by various documents.
7. I have considered the arguments and seen the case record as well as the record produced by the Patwari. A perusal of the case file reveals that first appeal by the petitioners was filed before the ADC/Collector (Cons), Bahawalpur impleading 9 persons as respondents. In the revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons), Bahawalpur, the number of respondents was raised to 81. Some increase can he attributed to impleading heirs of deceased, A who were respondents Nos.5,6 and 8 in the Court of Collector (Cons). In the present revision petition the number of respondents, as per memo of petition, is 91. During the pendency of the revision petition some respondents viz. Nos.14,38,39 and 71 died and the number further went up, but the fact remains that the number of respondents was increased at every stage which amounts to improving of the case by the petitioners and hence cannot be allowed as held in PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 156.
8. The second major point concerns the alienation of land by the petitioners during the pendency of litigation. As has been stated earlier, the petitioners have asserted that the land was alienated by them in favour of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and the National Bank of Pakistan for a loan for the purchase of a tractor. However, according to the record, the following alienations have been made by the petitioners since the formation of the Schemes:-
(i) Through mutation No,53, attested on 24-8-1985, 174 Kanals 18 Marlas of land was mortgaged in favour of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan.
(ii) Through Mutation No,86, attested on 4-3-1986, 214 Kanals of land was mortgaged in favour of National Bank of Pakistan.
(iii) Through Tamleek Mutation No,108, attested on 20-7-1986, 78 Kanals 10 Marlas of land was transferred in favour of Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan.
(iv) Through registered deed dated 11-2-1986, 32 Kanals of land was transferred in favour of Muhammad Jaleel Manzoor Ahmad.Mutation No,109 was attested on 20-7-1986 accordingly.
(v) Through registered Tamleek dated 3-9-1986, 77 Kanals 9 Marlas was transferred in favour of Rafiq, etc.
9. The petitioners' assertion, that alienation of specific khasra numbers has not been made in any case including Tamleek gift by Haji Muhammad petitioner to his sons, does not stand close scrutiny. The learned counsel for respondents has placed on record a decree dated 26-7-1989, by Civil Judge First Class, Ahmadpur Sharqia by which land comprising 14 Kanals 2 Marlas in Rectangle No,297/8, Fields No,8(B&D) measuring 8 Kanals, Field No,11(J) measuring 6 Kanals 2 Marlas of Rectangle No,297/12, with 15 shops, commercial buildings and residential house was decreed in favour of Muhammad Jaleel and Abdul Hafeez sons of Haji Manzoor Ahmad. This suit was preferred on 15-5-1989 and decreed on 26-7-1989. It is obviously a collusive decree by which valuable commercial property was alienated by Manzoor Ahmad petitioner No,9 to his sons Muhammad Jaleel and Abdul Hafeez during the pendency of the present revision petition in this forum without the Court's permission which throws ample light on the conduct of the, petitioners.
Manzoor Ahmad had also earlier alienated by way of gift 32 Kanals to his son Mohammad Jaleel vide mutation No,109 dated 20-7-1986. Neither Muhammad Jaleel or Abdul Hafeez is party in the case and thus land in these two transations has been taken out of the purview of the Consolidation Courts during the pendency of proceedings. Encumbrances such as mortgage even of specific Khasra numbers to a bank can be transferred to other area under B section 17 of the Ordinance ibid but land alienated to persons not party to proceedings cannot be affected by any changes which the Court may order in the respective schemes of the parties. The conduct of the petitioners therefore, debars them from seeking meaningful relief in revision.
10. The third major ground taken by the petitioners was the consent given by Yar Muhammad, one of their co-sharers to the separation of the joint khata. According to record the petitioners and Yar Muhammad were co-sharers in khata Nos.45 and 46. Yar Muhammad had a share of 2 Kanals 5 Marlas in khata No,45 and 1 Kanal 18 Marlas in khata No,46. However, in the total area of these khatas Yar Muhammad's entitlement was not substantial. It has been consistently held in various authorities by the Board of Revenue that consent of one shareholder is sufficient on behalf of other co-sharers and in the c absence of any ruling or instructions to the contrary in this case the authorities below have not committed any error in accepting Yar Muhammad's consent. However, during the course of hearing of the case on 30-1-1990, an affidavit of Yar Muhammad was tendered that he had not given his consent to the partition of the khatas nor had affixed his signatures thereon. This denial has come up for the first time in the long history of the case and the affidavit is dated 23-1-1990. Yar Muhammad had been impleaded as respondent No,1 right from the inception of this case before the ADC/Collector (Cons.) and this ground was never taken by the petitioners or by Yar Muhammad respondent at any stage earlier and is, therefore, not-tenable at this stage. Evenif his consent is ignored in view of his very small share in the joint khata, it may not help the petitioners' case. As has been seen earlier the petitioners have objected only to Scheme No,293 and have not raised any objection to their other schemes. The respondents inter alia comprised of widows namely, Mst. Maqbool Bibi, Mst, Bashri Begum, Mst. Asghari Begum etc., and their khatas were, therefore, validly separated notwithstanding the consent of Yar Muhammad. The acceptance of their tither schemes viz. Nos.98, 123 and 331, which may be advantageous to the petitioners suggests that petitioners had full knowledge of consolidation operations but had not themselves singed the schemes for one reason or the other. The question of power of attorney to a co-sharer agreeing to scheme on behalf of his other co-sharers does not arise as it will further complicate the already not very simple consolidation operations and create procedural hurdles.
No such instructions have ever been issued by the Board of Revenue. However, the consolidation authorities must ensure that a co-sharer representing a joint khata must have a substantial interest therein and not a marginal one as in the instant case.
11, There is some substance in the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) had not attended to all the contentions raised by him in the impugned order. The learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) has not dealt with the question of increase in the number of petitioners' post-consolidation plots and very small pieces of shamlat's share in the petitioners' khata. The sketch map of pre and post consolidation positions shows that the petitioners' main blocks remain. More or less the same and they have been accommodated on their previously possessed area but there is a number of new micro plots total area of which is about 2 acres. The reasons for this fragmentation were closely examined by me in some depth and are attributable, mostly, to petitioners' studied indifference to consolidation proceedings. It was found that at this stage there was no possibility whereby the fragmented pieces of petitioners' possessed area in Shamlat could be consolidated without affecting the other right-holders most of whom are not parties to this case. The petitioners are themselves to blame for losing the opportunity before confirmation of the scheme and by not impleading necessary parties subsequently.
12., The question of reduction in entitlement of the petitioners has been dealt with at some length by the ADC/Collector (Cons.) in his order dated 17-1-1984. He has also dealt with the question of formation of various Wandas. The reasons given by him in his order are unexceptionable, and are accordingly upheld. The upshot of the discussion is that the petitioners have tried to improve their case at every stage and have continued to alienate the land in their Wandas throughout the subsistence of the proceedings before various forums. As late as in 1989 the valuable commercial property in their Wandas was alienated through a collusive decree by Manzoor Ahmad. In such circumstances the schemes or Wandas of the parties cannot be re-cast in any meaningful manner. No illegality or irregularity seems to have been committed by the authorities in the Courts below and the petitioners have received their full entitlement. The revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.