ORDER MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM, MEMBER.- The present case has come up before this Court as a result of the order passed in Writ Petition No.625/1992 by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in the case titled Ch. Amanat Ali S/o Haji Fateh Muhammad and others versus Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore & Others " Challenging the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 21-9-1991, whereby the re-consolidation of village Raja pur, Tehsil & District Lodhran was ordered.
2. Briefly, the Consolidation of the above-said village was last done on 14-4-1970. As majority of the land-owners in the said village after a lapse of over twenty years made another written request for reconsolidation, therefore, further proceedings were initiated strictly according to legal provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 which again require the mandatory compliance of majority consent of at least 51% of the right-holders owning at least 51% of the cultivable area. An enquiry in the village was held whereby majority of the right holders participated. Out of total of 1766 land-owners, 971 land- owners indicated their consent. These land-owners in favour of reconsolidation were found owners of 8246 acres out of a total of 8950 acres. As such percentage of consenting land- owners and the area owned by them was 55% and 92%, respectively. However, the case was considered in the Board of Revenue on 19-6-1991 and although the said percentage of both owners and area was considerably high than the minimum required for the reconsolidation, but still the Board of Revenue on 19-6-1991 directed that the field staff "should motivate some others so that the percentage comes to 60%."
3. In compliance with this direction, the field staff after due publicity in the village in an open meeting called upon the land-owners for exercising then- free will and discretion. As a result of this exercise, some land-owners dropped out having substantial holding while large number of others having small holdings with scattered land over a large number of plots indicated their consent for reconsolidation. In nut-shell in the second exercise, i095 land-owners out of a total of 1766 communicated their consent having ownership of 7143 acres of land out of total area of 8950 acres. Thus, the percentage of the consenting land- owners and the areas owned by them came to 63% and 80%, respectively, which was far higher than the minimum limit of 51% as laid down in Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. On consideration of this factual position, my learned predecessor vide his order dated 12-9-1991 directed the field staff to take up the reconsolidation work of the said village in hand.
4. This order was communicated to the field staff vide letter No.2625- 91/700-CH(P)I, dated 21-9- 1991, which was challenged in Writ Petition by Ch. Amanat Ali. The Honourable Judge of the High Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 12-7-l9i93, the operational part of which is to the following effect:- "Relist for further proceedings soon after the long vacation. Meanwhile the field staff, which is said to have been deputed for carrying out reconsolidation of the said village, is restrained from carrying out their duties as consolidation staff."
5. The Honourable Judge further observed as under:- "I would like the learned Member(Consolidation), Board of Revenue to reconsider his earlier order after hearing the petitioners."
6. The copy of the said order was produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the first time on 7-8-1993 and the following order was passed thereon: - "Presented today. To come up on 8-8-1993."
On 8-8-1993 after examination of the facts of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the following order was passed:- "Counsel present and heard. A Robkar be issued restraining the Consolidation staff .From proceeding further in the matter. Original i.e containing the reconsolidation order be put up. A factual report be summoned from the field authorities to be put up on 27-9-1993 at Multan". Dated 8-8-1993.
7. The later part of the above order was passed in view of the policy decision of the Board of Revenue taken in 1990 and communicated to all vide letter No.3587-90/2080- CH(P)I, dated 20-12- 1990. According to this policy decision, it was laid down that as the consolidation proceedings are started only after obtaining the majority consent, any party challenging these proceedings will be required to prove that majority of the land-owners are against Consolidation/Reconsolidation Operations. Accordingly, the Consolidation Officer submitted his report on 27-9-1993 before this Court in the presence of Faqir Muhammad son of Amanat Ali, petitioner as the latter had expired in the meantime. Faqir Muhammad was heard at length. It was found that the Consolidation Officer had not provided full opportunity by visiting the village with due notice to all the parties and advance publicity and also his report dated 26-9- 1993 was based on the examination of record only. Therefore, he was directed to submit a new report after giving due opportunity to all the parties in the revenue estate itself. This report was directed to be submitted before the Court on 23-10- 1993.
8. During the enquiry conducted by the Consolidation Officer in the village, petitioner Faqir Muhammad was not present and instead was represented by his son Shahzad Anwar. As a result of spot enquiry, only 16 land-owners owning a total area of K559-M03 opposed the reconsolidation.
Thus, the area under the ownership of these persons was less than 1% of the total area. Similarly, the petitioner party could produce only 16-land-owners, who were against reconsolidation operations out of a total of 1766.
9. Apart from the bare facts of the case as stated above, I find that Faqir Muhammad son of the original petitioner Amanat Ali conveniently absented himself at the time of the visit of the Consolidation Officer to the village on 17-10- 1993, leaving the matter to his sons Shahzad Anwar and Sajjad Sarwan An application was submitted by Sajjad Sarwar before the Consolidation Officer stating that the grandfather of the petitioner had expired and as such father Faqir Muhammad was absent, which as pointed out above is a matter since long past. A number of objections, were raised by Shahzad Anwar before the Consolidation Officer, which from the perusal of the record were not only frivolous but totally irrelevant. He referred to some other application which had been moved in the High Court and insisted on the point that the present proceedings by the Consolidation Officer were violative of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. However, it was made clear to him by the Consolidation Officer that the present proceedings were in the nature of an enquiry report which is required by the Board of Revenue.
10. In the meantime, it appears that exactly at the same time on 17-10- 1993, Faqir Muhammad was moving another application before the High Court, Multan Bench alleging that the earlier orders of the High Court have not been complied with and the reconsolidation work has been started. This, as discussed' above, was totally against the factual position. By this second application, which was totally unnecessary and uncalled for, the Hon'ble High Court passed another , interim order on 17- 10-1993, which is reproduced as under:- "Further proceedings in respect of reconsolidation are stayed meanwhile."
11. This order was presented by the learned counsel before this Court today. As submitted earlier, the Consolidation work has remained suspended since 8-8-1993 when the first order was sent to the field staff for compliance.
12. The mere narration of the factual position in the above paras hardly need any elaboration. For certain unknown reason best known to himself, the ' petitioner has tried to forestall the reconsolidation work by rendering the entire field staff idle. He has been adopting delaying tactics for achieving certain 1 motives. This conclusion is inescapable in view of the fact that reconsolidation proceedings as per policy are not started abruptly or whimsically. These are initiated on the written request of the land-owners and maximum care is taken to ascertain that the number of the consenting land-owners and the area, required u/S 4 of the Ordinance is sufficiently higher than the minimum required limit. The factual position of the case in this respect is patently clear as 63% of the land- owners owning 80% of the cultivable areas are in favour of reconsolidation. The petitioner has failed even to prove a bare majority of the land-owners against it as I the onus was on him. Above all, I find that the petitioner has tried to give a wrong impression by agitating "that the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is a temporary legislature and once the Consolidation of an estate has been completed and finalized it cannot be repeatedly invoked." In this connection, I am constrained to observe that on account of the law of inheritance, frequent alienation and considerable improvement taking place in' social sector, requirement of land to be earmarked for the construction of roads, Basic Health Units, Schools or recreation grounds which are not possible to be created except through Consolidation and process of reconsolidation, this operation has been and is of a permanent nature. The necessity or need for reconsolidation will depend upon all these circumstances and conditions which in certain cases can be even after 10 years, 16 years or 20 years. Each case is being decided on its merits..
However, to put the record straight, it is to be stated that dining the past one year reconsolidation permission was granted by the Board of Revenue in nearly three dozen villages. Thus, it is totally wrong to contend that reconsolidation is unwarranted.
13. In the circumstances of this case, I am led to conclude that the present petition is unfortunately misconceived. I have due regard for the apprehensions of the petitioner, but I am afraid these are unfounded. There are ample safeguards and provisions for remedy and redress in the Ordinance.
An aggrieved party has not only the right of an appeal before the Collector (Consolidation), but has second remedy of revision before the Additional Commissioner (Cons:) if still aggrieved, another remedy by way of revision before the Board of Revenue. There is further provision in the Ordinance itself (hat a party can get his ares excluded from Consolidation proceedings u/S 9(a) on proving his case. Thus, there is absolutely no merit or substance in the present prayer and I do not find any cogent reasons/grounds to set aside the order of my learned predecessor under which reconsolidation of village Rajapur was ordered. The same is, therefore, maintained.
14. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan as the Writ Petition has been ordered to be fixed in the second week of November, 1993. It is, further, directed that reconsolidation proceeding which already stand suspended shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the said Writ Petition. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the. Field officers.