HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- This revision petition is directed u/s 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 20.8.1989 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Gujranwala Division whereby the .Revision petit ion of the petitioners was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village Bambli, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat was confirmed u/s 10(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 29.1.1988.. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Collector (Cons) with a delay of 14 days who vide his order dated 6.7.1988 accepted it and made certain amendments in the khatas of the parties. The petitioners, still dissatisfied, went up in revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Cons), who, vide his impugned order, rejected it holding that the petitioners wanted to pick up some area and leave the other one which was not reasonable. The Collector (Cons) had accommodated the petitioners to the maximum extent by allocating them khasra No. 18/11 measuring 7 Kanals 8 marlas and if Khasra No. 18/17 was also restored to the petitioners the chaks of the respondents would be befurcated and increased in contravention of spirit of consolidation. The petitioners failed to propose any suitable amendment which could maintain the chaks of-the parties. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners appeal was erroneously treated as revision by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons) and consequently dismissed; that the impugned order had been passed in utter disregard of the principles of consolidation and that the Additional Commissioner (Cons) failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him oh misconceived grounds and for this reason some new respondents had been impleaded as a party in the case.
4. I have perused the case record and considered the arguments. Only one appeal is allowed to an aggrieved person under Section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, which was availed by the petitioners in the court of ADC/Collector (Cons). The second appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) was, therefore, not competent and was rightly treated as a revision by the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons). His treating the appeal as revision has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice because the case was decided by him on merits and not on technicalities alone. From the orders of the courts below, it is evident that if Khasra No. 18/17 is given to the petitioners 'in accordance with the principles of consolidation' as asserted by the learned counsel, then the same principles would be violated as far as the respondents are concerned. This argument, therefore, is not tenable on balance. It is further observed that the petitioners impleaded only 9 persons as respondents in his appeal before the ADC/Collector (Cons) and then number of respondents was raised to 11 by impleading Pir Muhammad and Ali sons of Muhammada before the Additional Commissioner (Cons) and this number has now again been increased to 17 by impleading six other right-holders. The petitioners appear to be trying to improve their case at every stage, whereas they have no reasonable ground for this continued litigation. No illegality or irregularity seems to have been committed by the courts below. The revision is devoid of any force and is accordingly dismissed in limine.