' Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha Division whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate Zalla Shumali, Tehsil and District Mianwali was confirmed under section 10(3) of the Ordinance by the Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1984. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal with a delay of 1 year and 8 months in the Court of Collector (Cons.), who vide his order dated 16-3-1986 accepted it holding that the petitioners were deprived of the land previously held by them during the consolidation operations and the respondents were benefited at their cost. He made certain amendments in the Khatas of the parties. This order was assailed in appeal in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Cons.) by the respondents who vide his impugned order accepted it holding that as a result of the amendments framed by the Collector (Cons.) the respondents were given land which was not previously held by them. The respondents were allocated land during the consolidation operations in one compact plot and after the exclusion of land measuring 31 Kanals 6 Marlas the shape of the plot of the respondents was made awkward.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the consolidation scheme of the revenue estate was confirmed on 31-3-1984. The land in Khasra Nos. 222, 223 and 224 measuring 31 Kanals 6 Marlas, previously held and possessed by the petitioners, was given to the respondents Nos. 1 to 7.
The petitioners' appeal was accepted by the ADC/Collector (Cons.) and they were given back this land. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) accepted the respondents' appeal and restored the original consolidation scheme between the parties. The petitioners' holding had been scattered into small pieces of inferior land. It was prayed that they may be restored their previously held land.
4. It was stated on behalf of the respondents Nos. 10, 14 and 15 that the answering respondents had no objection if the prayer in the revision petition were to be accepted.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 maintained, in rebuttal, that petitioners did not have any better claim on the land in dispute because they were not in possession thereof. The area in dispute was obtained in exchange by the answering respondents from Khewat No,144. The revision was liable to be rejected on this score only.
6. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record and the pre-and post-consolidation sketch map prepared by the Patwari. According to the record Ghulam Qadir etc., became the owner in Khewat No, 145 having gifted 10 Kanals 12 Marlas land vide Mutation No, 366 dated 30-6- 1983 and 391 dated 10-9-1983 and in Khewat No,144 having gifted 14 Kanals 17 Mamas land vide Mutation No,430 dated 29-1-1984 i,e, before the confirmation of the scheme. However, it is not certain whether they were in possession thereof or not. The impugned order seems to be based on the sole consideration of compactness of block. The learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) seems to have overlooked the factor that the number of plots of any one party was bound to go up after the decision of the appeal and therefore, in the present case compactness of block cannot be made the only basis for deciding the appeal. The question of entitlement and possession is also to be considered alongwith the conditions in the mode of partition. The revision petition therefore succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, for fresh decision after hearing the parties.
' The order in this case was reserved and shall be communicated to the parties.