' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 4-10-1972 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan whereby respondent's revision petition was accepted.
2. I have considered the arguments of the parties and perused the record.
3. Brief facts are that Consolidation Scheme of the village was confirmed by the A. C.
0. In 1968. `Misal Haqiat' was prepared in 1970 and the record was transferred to Mahal side. After about 4 years the petitioner filed a time-barred appeal before the Collector who through his order dated 26-7-72 made certain adjustments in the khata of the parties i,e, Khasra No, 8/3 (4K-16M) of Square No, 43 which was jointly in the name of the petitioner and the respondent in equal shares in Scheme No, l244 was entirely given to the petitioner. His co-sharer Ghuiam Haider respondent was given Khasra No, 17-min Gharbi of Square No, 28 (2K-8M) to the extent of his share in another joint Scheme No, 226 in which there were other 121 co-sharers who were not a party to the case. This order of the Collector has been set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) through his impugned order dated 4-10-72 on the appeal of the respondent. Hence the present revision petition.
4. The petitioner has claimed the disputed khasra number on the ground that it contained his `Baghicha' and was entirely in his possession before consolidation.
5. The record shows that consolidation was taken up in the village on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1957-58. The disputed Khasra No, 8/3 of Square No, 43 corresponding to old Khasra Nos.
685/1 and 685/2 was included in the joint Khata No,
115. There was no mention of any 'Baghicha' in the jamabandi nor was it in the possession of the petitioner. The entries of khasra girdawari for the year 1960 to 1963 show that Khasr No, 685/2 (4 kanals) was jointly in the possession of the petitioner and respondent in equal square while Khasra No, 685/1 (13 marlas) was in the possession of one Sohanra. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there were some forged entries in the jamabandi of 1957-58. If this were so the petitioner should have moved the proper forum at the proper time for the correction of the entries.
6. The appeal filed by the petitioner was time-barred by about for years and the Collector should have first considered the issue of limitation before considering the case on merits. The changes made by the Collector are also not supported by the Record-of-Rights. Further these changes in Scheme No, 226 were effected without making the co-sharers a party to the case. Since possession had changed after confirmation of the Consolidation Scheme, the Collector should not have made any alterations. The Collector's order dated 26-7.72 was, therefore, correctly set aside by the Additional Commissioner and there is no ground to interfere in the matter, The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.