' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 11.4-1973 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha, whereby the revision petition of the petitioners was rejected.
2. I have heard the parties and examined the record.
3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they have been deprived of their rights in the land which has been in their possession for a long time as Qabiz Nau Tor Basharah Malikan {{ARABIC TEXT}} It was further explained by the petitioners' counsel that they (petitioners) were deprived of their rights not by the Killabandi authorities, but by the consolidation staff whereas the rights of the respondents have remained unaltered.
4. Brief facts of the case are that consolidation scheme of the village was confirmed by the is. C.
0. On 26-6-1964. After a lapse of more than 8 years the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.) on 23-10-1972. This appeal was rejected on 12-12-1972 on the point of limitation.
Their revision petition was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha through his order dated 11-4-1973 (impugned order) on the ground that it was not proper and valid to re- open the whale question of entitlement at that late stage as the consolidation of the village was done in accordance with the record existing at that time.
5. The record shows that the petitioners and respondents held land jointly in Scheme No, 8 with a total Malkiati area of 44K-7M. The petitioners have no grievance against this scheme. What they want is that the land which was in their possession should be allowed to remain with them.
6. A scrutiny of the record shows that the consolidation proceedings were started on the basis of mutation No, 5 sanctioned on 19-12-1956 by the Killa Bandi authorities. This matution provided the basis for the consolidation field staff for the preparation of 'Khatauni Ishtemal.' In the said mutation the petitioners were shown as 'Ghair Dakhilkaran Basharah Malikan' and the same was the position of the respondents. The total area which was in the possession of the petitioners was 279K-13M at Khatas Nos. 9/64, 9/65, 66, 67 and 9/58. The respondents were in possession of 501K-10M at Khatas Nos. 9/65, 66, 67, 9/54 and 9/57.
' The details are as follows :- {{TABLE}} Petitioners Area in Respondents Area in possession possession wawanwea=1=1111.41111.1011.111S.1.1,1.111Imameal Khata.
9/64. Ghulaman son of Sardar. (Khan Mohd. Akbar, Anwar, Sohanra and Bakhtawar petitioners Nos.
1 to 5 legal heirs of Ghulaman). 68K Khata.
9/65. Dillan, Bahadur, 67KAM Hamid, Bakhsha 50K-8M 66 Hassu, Massu, 112K-3M 67 ss/o Ghulaman.
229K-15M #TBS (Legal represen- share tatives Ida, Haji, 1/4th Ghazi and Haq 57K-9M Nawaz.
9/54 Bahadur s/o 248K-1 M Gaman.
9/57 Dillan, Bahadur, 196-0M Hamid, Bakhsha, Hassu, Massu ss/o Gaman equal share. Total t 501K- 10M Khata Nos. 9/54 & 9/57 have been maintained in Scheme Nos. 9/104 & 9/106. #TBE 9/65. Ghulaman, Kora ss/o 67K-4M Sardar.
66 Dhingana s/o Mohd. 50K-8M Legal representatives. 11211;-3M 67 Khan Mohd. Akbar, Anwar, 229K-15M Sooanra & Bakhtawar.
Hussain s/o Kora & share Allah Ditta a/o Budha 3/4th s/o Kora (petitioners 172K-6M Nos. 9 and 10).
9/58 Dhingana s/o Mohd. 39K-7M Total 2 279K-13M {{TABLE}}
8. Thus the Killabandi authorities did not deprive the petitioners and the respondents of their rights as 'Ghair Dakhlkaran Basharah Malikan' over the area in their possession as indicated above. But the consolidation field staff while preparing the Khatuni Ishtemal extinguished their rights by giving effect to the entries of mutation No, 704 sanctioned on 16-9-1955. In this mutation the entries of the parties as 'chair Dakhilkaran Basharah Maliken' were deleted on the basis of a civil Court decree dated 30-10-1942.
9. I also find from the record that while depriving the parties of their rights on the basis of mutation No, 704, respondents Bahadur son of Gaman and Dullan, Bahadur, Hamid, Bakhsha, Hassu and Massu sons of Gaman were still shown as 'Gbair Dakhilkaran Basharah Malikan' at scheme Nos.
9/104 and 9/106. Thus the rights of these respondents over the area of Khata Nos. 9/54 and 9/57 were allowed to continue. This is not under standable. If mutation No, 704 was given effect to by the Consolidation Staff, how the rights of these respondents remained unaffected. Moreover, when Killabandi authorities did not give effect to the entries of mutation No, 704 in Killabandi Mutation No, 5 dated 19-12-1956 how could the consolidation staff give effect to the said mutation. The civil Court decre is dated as far back as 1942 and the mutation was entered on 3-1-1955 (sanctioned on 1E-9-1955) after the lapse of a period of 13 years. It was also asserted by the petitioners' counsel that this mutation had already been reviewed. Taking all these facts into account, I am of the view that consolidation field staff have not acted legally in the preparation of 'Khatuni Ishtemal' and `Naqsha Haqdaran'. Therefore, in the interest of justice I condone the delay and remand the case to the Collector (Cons.), Mianwali to scrutinize the rights of the parties again in the light of the above observations and pass fresh orders after hearing the parties.