HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.~This revision petition is directed u/s 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated10.11.1985 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation Sargodha Division whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of village Dab Xalan, Tehsil Shorkot District Jhang was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer on 30.11.1984. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) who vide his order dated 13.8.1985 accepted it and made certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties holding that Khasra Nos. 274/25 and 275/11/2 were previously owned and possessed by the respondents which were valuable due to their location. In lieu thereof the petitioners were given Khasra 4^0. 186/23/2. The petitioners assailed this order in the court of Addl. Commissioner (Cons) who vide his impugned order rejected the appeal holding in the impugned^order that since the claim of the petitioners was based on a Resolution which was not established, the Collector (Cons) had rightly made readjustment in the wandas of the parties. Hence this revision petition./
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal against the confirmation of the scheme before the Collector (Cons), which was accepted by him ignoring the agreement between the^parties during the consolidation proceedings regarding mutual exchange of Khasras No.274/25 and 275/11/2. The petitioners assailed this or in appeal before /the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), which was dismissed. Both the / courts have erred in holding that there was no resolution of exchange between the parties during the consolidation proceedings. The disputed Khasra number is situated in the centre of the petitioner's plot and if it was excluded then the petitioners' plot would be effected which would be against the principle of consolidation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents maintained, in Rebuttal, that there was no agreement regarding exchange of the object khasras and consequently there was no resolution. The petitioners had managed to obtain .The respondents' first class land through collusion with the consolidation staff and the respondents were, in exchange, left with second class inferior land. On appeal the respondents' grievance was correctly rectified by the Collector and hence the revision may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record and have also examined the record produced by the consolidation patwari. In the Register Karwai there is no resolution regarding exchange of land between the parties. The Register Scheme also does not mention any such resolution against the respective schemes of the parties. The petitioners' assertion that there was such a resolution and the consolidation staff had not produced that before the consolidation authorities is, therefore, totally unfounded and imaginative. Had there been any such resolution it would have duly been reflected in both these registers which do not appear to have been tampered with. Thus there is no force in the arguments of the petitioner. The revision, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.