HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- This revision petition is directed u/s 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 19.7.1989 of the Addl: Commissioner (Cons), Sargodha Division, whereby he remanded the case to the Tehsildar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the revenue estate Dinga Dakhali Kandiwal, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Ordinance ibid by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 28.2.1975. ,The petitioners, feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons) who vide his order dated 21.11.1979 accepted it and made certain amendments in the wandas of the parties. This order was challenged upto the Board of Revenue and kept-in-tact. Accordingly mutation No.1136 was attested on 11.5.1980. The petitioners applied to the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector-I for possession who vide his order dated 13.8.1988 allowed the same holding that the land in dispute was allocated to the petitioners as a result of consolidation operations. The parties went to the Civil Court after the final decision of the Board of Revenue but in vain. This order was challenged by the respondents in the court of the Assistant Commissioner Collector Chiniot who vide his order dated 19.12.1988 rejected it holding that the respondents failed to convince the court that they were owner of the land in question. He further held that perusal of the decision of the Civil Court revealed that the respondents failed to prove their possession on the land in question. The respondents assailed this order is revision petition in the court of the Addl.
Commissioner (Cons) who vide his impugned the case to the Tehsildar holding that the Warrant Dakhla was issued against those persons who were not impleaded as a party before the Collector (Cons). He directed the Tehsildar that the petitioners maybe allowed to implead relevant persons as party and then the case should be heard and decision should be given according to law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the dispute related to Khasra No.34/24/1 (4K-9M). The scheme was originally confirmed in February, 1979 and on appeal by the petitioners the respective schemes of the parties were modified. These decisions were upheld by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner application for warrant of possession but the respondents took recourse to the Civil Court. The respondents' suit was dismissed on 1.12.1987. The warrant of possession was issued in favour of the petitioners on 13.8.1988 and the respondents' appeal before the Collector
(Cons) was dismissed on 19.12.1988. However, the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) accepted the second appeal by the respondents and remanded the case to the Tehsildar. The second appeal before the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) was not competent. The first appeal against the warrant of possession should have been before the Commissioner and when the respondents filed a case before the Commissioner, it was time barred. The delay was not condoned and hence the impugned order was without jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained that warrant of possession can only be issued in accordance with law. The answering respondents was^'not concerned and could not be dispossessed. The respondents' adverse possession on this khasra number could not be extinguished by a warrant of possession. The Commissioner had merely remanded the case to the Tehsildar/Collector for fresh decision after hearing the parties. The respondents were not parties to the case when the warrant of possession was issued.
5. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. A warrant of possession under section 18 of the Ordinance ibid can be issued after confirmation of the scheme. No definite period had been prescribed for issue of the warrant of possession. However, Board of Revenue's letter No.1975-69/709- (1), dated 15.7.1969 lays down that "transfer is to be implemented as expeditiously as reasonably possible but there is no bar to transfer being effected even after three years if it could not be effected earlier". There is no provision of appeal against the issue of warrant of possession under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance but the affected parties can take recourse, under section 13 ibid, to the court of Commissioner or the Addl: Commissioner (Cons) invoking revisional jurisdiction because the warrant of possession is issued by the Consolidation Officer or the Tehsildar as a Collector and therefore a revision would he to the Commissioner only.
The Addl: Commissioner (Cons) should have therefore treated the appeal by the present respondents as a revision before him. However, there is no other weakness in the impugned order and the case has been remanded to the Tehsildar/Collector, Chiniot for fresh decision after impleading necessary parties. I do not see any merit in the present revision petition which is hereby dismissed.
6. The orders in the case were reserved and shall be communicated to the parties.