' Aggrieved by the order, dated 11-3-1990 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division, Sargodha whereby he accepted the revision of the respondents by setting aside the order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, dated 10-1-1990, the petitioner now filed this revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order.
2. Briefly the consolidation scheme of village Behl, Tehsil Bhakkar was confirmed under section 10(3) of the said Ordinance on 30-3-1989. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) claiming that their prepossessed land in Rectangle Nos.194, 195 and 196 has been unjustly allocated to the petitioners which is extremely valuable and instead they have been shifted to Rectangle No,95 previously owned and possessed by the respondents.
3. After considering facts of the case, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) vide his order dated 10-1-1991 dismissed the appeal of the respondents. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which being a revision, was treated as such. Through the impugned order amendment was ordered in the Wandas of the parties whereby the respondents were accommodated in Rectangle Nos.194, 195 and 196. The present petitioners having been aggrieved by the impugned order have now come up in revision.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. Record produced by Munshi Sultan Ahmed, Patwari and other documents connected with the case have also been examined.
5. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Commissioner has failed to appreciate the facts of the case properly and he has more or less relied upon the oath of one Allah Bakhsh, father of the respondents who was neither a party nor an attorney of the respondents. On the simple oath of aforesaid Allah Bakhsh, the learned Additional Commissioner based his conclusion with regard to the possession on the disputed land in favour of the respondents which is totally unwarranted and unjustified for the simple reason that the offer of such an oath was never accepted or conceded by the petitioners which was all done at their back. My attention was also drawn to the fact, that there was no point in disregarding the factual position of possession which was established by a report of the Consolidation Officer dated 18-12-1989 which was submitted to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.) at the time of the disposal of the appeal of the respondents. The schemes of the parties were confirmed with their express consent. The respondents had simply purchased some land out of the joint Khata from Saeeda Begum and Safia Begum and were admittedly not given possession of the disputed land. The disputed land had come to them through exchange as they had accepted the land of other right holders which was proved by the fact that the petitioners were given land from Khata No,229 in which the entitlement of the respondents was negligible.
6. As against this, counsel for the respondents pointed out that the Additional Commissioner had satisfied himself about the possession of the respondents on the disputed land, because it does not stand to reason that the respondents would have made their huge investment by purchasing land from Mst. Saeeda Begum and Safia Begum without taking possession of specific Khasra number. The so-called report of the Consolidation Officer dated 18-12-1991 was said to be sketchy and unreliable, because no particular effort was made to hold an inquiry. The finding of the Additional Commissioner was confirmed by Allah Bakhsh, father of the respondents, who voluntarily in the Court affirmed the possession of the respondents on the disputed land by taking a special oath on Holy Qur'an. Under the circumstances, it was argued that the impugned order is perfectly legal and does not warrant any interference.
7. After having given careful consideration to the contentions of the counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is obvious that the determining point in the impugned order is the special oath taken on Holy Qur'an by the aforesaid Allah Bakhsh. In this respect it must be stated at the outset, that the importance, significance and sanctity of Holy Qur'an apart, the conclusion, inference or findings in judicial matters as per procedure have to be based on evidence permissible under the rules which is supported by relevant documents. Such a recourse to "Divine Book" though not specifically provided, can still be resorted to, provided there is an express commitment to such a method by both the parties. In the instant case this element is missing.
Firstly, Allah Bakhsh is not a party to the proceedings, and secondly no such concession or commitment by the petitioners' party was made in the Court for accepting the averment which will be made on special oath by its deponent. This point is fully illustrated by a recent case which came up before this Court in a revision. Here both the parties who had agreed to adopt this method of special oath, one after the other readily affirmed on special oath that each one of them was in actual possession of the disputed land. Thus, the lower Court in the circumstances of this case, was left with no alternative, but to fall upon on other evidence in order to reach its conclusion with regard to the actual possession on the disputed land. In view of this, I am forced to observe that the learned Additional Commissioner was required to keep (in view) the above implications of the special oath while giving his findings with regard to the possession on the disputed land simply on the basis of aforesaid special oath of Allah Bakhsh.
8. From the perusal of the record it is quite evident that the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.)/Collector while deciding the appeal of the respondents vide order dated 10- 1-1990 took sufficient precautions in order to find out as to which particular party was in actual possession of the disputed land. The report of the Consolidation Officer, dated 18-12-1989 is not only relevant, but quite to the point. This was prepared after a visit to the spot and the crop of Tara Meera which was found on the disputed land, was attributed to have been cultivated by the present petitioners.
9. It is a matter of common experience that revenue reports are usually prepared on the above lines. The concerned official after verifying any particular fact, usually records his report on the basis of whatever is attributed or stated against or in favour of particular area or party. This report was prepared in the presence of three respectables of the village out of whom one was a Councillor. In case the said report was incorrect, it was open to the respondents to challenge it or submit counter evidence in order to falsify the contents of the said report. There is nothing of this sort on the file.
10. Obviously, the petitioners had taken possession of this land in the disputed rectangles through a private exchange which is proved by the fact that they were also allocated land from Khata No,229 in which the respondents had negligible entitlement. This is also supported by the confirmation of the consolidation schemes under section 10(3) of the Ordinance which was on the basis of the express consent of the parties. I am further convinced in coming to this conclusion by the simple reason that the disputed land was in the joint Khata and none of other co-sharers except the respondents filed an appeal against the petitioners.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is clearly proved that the petitioners have been unjustly deprived of their land in the aforesaid rectangles. Accordingly the present revision succeeds and is accepted, with the result that the impugned order is set aside.