' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 28-2-1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division whereby he restored the consolidation scheme.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner challenged the confirmation order of the Consolidation Officer in respect of Chak No,20, D.B. Tehsil and District Mianwali in the Court of Collector (Consolidation), Mianwali, who vide his order dated 22-12-1986 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner went up in revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Sargodha Division who vide his order dated 10-5-1987 remanded the case to the Collector (Consolidation) with the direction that Taj Din petitioner should be either compensated or he should not be made to bear the loss of his land. In purs,uance of the remand order the Collector (Cons.) accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 19-9-1987. He held in his order that the dispute between the parties was about the deficiency of land relating to the petitioner which was used for a public path and this deficiency was not made up by the respondents. He abolished the path framed during the consolidation operations according to Musawada Scheme. The respondents assailed this order in the Court of Additional Commisioner (Consolidation) who vide his impugned order set aside the Collector's order dated 19-9-1987 and restored the original consolidation scheme holding that according to Musawada Tariqa Taqseem a path from Rect. No, 79/1 to 79/4 had to be kept and it had proceeded further from Killa No,5 of Rect. No,83/5. This path was created during the Consolidation operations according to Musawada Tariqa Takseem. As fat as the compensation was concerned, the Musawada Tariqa Takseem provided that the land under the path will be deducted from the pers,ons where the path passed. Therefore, no provision for compensation was made in the Musawada Tariqa Takseem. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had a total holding of 117K-19M in Rectangles Nos.54, 55, 78 and 79, given to him in consolidation. There was an existing watercours,e and a katcha path in Khasra No,54/6-11. During consolidation operations another water cours,e in Rectangles Nos.78 and 79 was created as was a new path in Rectangle No,79, through field numbers, 1 to 4, on both sides of Khasra No,79/4 causing him deficiency of 6 Kanals. No compensation was given to the petitioner for this huge loss sustained by him and the path could easily be created in the respondents' adjacent plot as they were the sole beneficiary. Although the case was previously remanded by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide order dated 10-5-1987 yet the impugned order raised new issues through Tariqa Taqseem.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, in rebuttal, maintained that the disputed path in Khasras Nos.79/i to 4 was provided for in the Tariqa Taqseem and no objection was raised at that time and the scheme was accepted by the petitioner without demanding any compensation. The appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) was time-barred. Lal Din respondent was not the sole beneficiary and he had also given land for continuation of the subject path through six fields for common good.
5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the sketch map produced by the Patwari. The sketch map shows that petitioner Taj Din's holding is situated in Rectangles Nos.54, 78 and 79 along the canal. The holdings of the respondents Lal Din and Mukhtar are adjoining and are situated to the south of the petitioner's holding whereas respondent Nawab Din's holding lies towards the East. There is only one bridge on the canal which connects the village with these and other fields viz. Rectangles Nos.105 to 115. Although there is a road on either side of the canal yet the Irrigation authorities do object and occaisonally prosecute the trespassers, on their property. With the rise in the number of tractors, etc. a clear path for approaching these lands i,e, in Rectangles Nos.82 to 115 was needed and correctly provided for in the Tariqa Taqseem. Admittedly Lal Din and Mukhtar respondents will be some of the beneficiaries. Although the necessity of the path is certainly there yet the petitioner seems to be more than fairly affected by the creation of the water-cours,e and a new path in his holding. No doubt collective good should take priority over individual wishes but the burden of collective good should be proportionately shared by all and not disproportionately by any single pers,on. This consideration seems to have been lost sight of while framing the Tariqa Taqseem in the present case,
6. The total area in the new path through the holding of Taj Din petitioner in Khasras Nos.78/10 and 79/1 to 4 works out to be 4K-3M,. Lal Din respondent readily agreed before me on 28-2-1990 to compensate the petitioner. In view of the foregoing the revision petition is accepted with the direction to the Collector (Cons.) that the petitioner shall be compensated by Lal Din and Mukhtar respondents to the extent of 28 marlas each from their holding adjacent to the petitioner's plot through amendment as compensation. The petitioner shall provide the remaining 27 marlas under the path without any compensation for common good.