Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent No.1. This petition has been admitted to regular hearing today and both learned counsel have been heard at length. Both Courts below have proceeded on the premise that the order, dated 22-2-1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer had been passed in the absence of respondent No.1 and, as such, was void. It was further held by the two Courts below that all subsequent orders passed by the revenue forums, were also void because the original order, dated 22-2-1981 had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1. This finding of the two Courts below does not take into account the important circumstance that the said order was set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide his order, dated 7-7-1986 whereby he remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). Thereafter, there was a second round of litigation before the Revenue Authorities and finally an order, dated 23-12-1989 was passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), wherein the Wandas of the petitioner and respondent No.1 were determined after hearing both parties and considering all aspects of the matter. Aggrieved with the said order, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) vide order, dated 10-10-1990. A revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 before the Board of Revenue, was also dismissed on 24-12-1091.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the Civil Courts lacked jurisdiction in view of section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. It is correct that the said statutory provision bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters falling within the competence of the Consolidation Authorities under the aforesaid statute. It is clear from the protracted proceedings before the Revenue forums that any deficiency in the order, dated 22-2-1981 on account of the fact that respondent No.1 was not heard, stood rectified by subsequent proceedings where he was afforded an opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances, the findings of the two Courts below that all orders passed by the Revenue forums subsequent to 22-2-1981, were void, cannot be maintained. In the circumstances, I hold that the impugned orders were validly passed by the Revenue forums and that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to set them aside. As a result, this revision petition is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed in favour of respondent No.1 dated 3-5-1995 and 18-12-1998 are set aside. Resultantly, the suit filed by respondent No.1 stands dismissed.
3. It appears from the existing record that the land, to which respondent No.1 was entitled, was given to him in Scheme No.65 and Scheme No.160, respectively. However, if there is any deficiency in the area of his Wanda, respondent No.1 may, subject to law, initiate proceedings as may be permitted under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Any fresh proceedings, which may be initiated by respondent No.1, shall not bar the Revenue forums from ensuring that the petitioner receives possession of the land to which he is entitled under the Consolidation Scheme No.65.