' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 15th February 1977 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Multan, whereby he remanded the appeal of the petitioner for the separation of Khia's share.
2. I have heard the parties sod examined the record.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has been allotted inferior land and that be has not been given his full entitlement. The petitioner has also requested that the share of Khia who is a co- sharer with him in scheme No, 474 should not be separated.
4. The record shows that the petitioner with his co-sharer Khia in Scheme No, 474 has been allotted 65 kanals-8 marlas in class I, 149 kanals 13 marlas in Class II and 11 kanals in Class III land (167 kanais-6 marlas in terms of Class I) at 19 places as against 72 kanals-1 marla in Class 1. 145 kanals- 9 marlas in Class II and 10 kanals-19 marlas in Class III (171 kanals-3 marks in terms of Class I) at 31 places before consolidation. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner along with his co-sharer has received 5 kanals-17 marlas less (in terms of Class 1) than he was entitled to. The case of the petitioner has already been remanded to the A.C.O, by the Addl Commissioner (Cons.), Multan under his impugned order dated 15th February 1977, for the separation of Khia's share. This remand order will stand subject to the modification that the shortage of 3 kanals-17 marlas (in terms of Class I) in Scheme No, 474 of the petitioner and his co-sharer Khia should be made good, as far as possible, from the respondents who have received land (in Class I) in excess of their entitlement.
The request of the petitions not to separate Khia's share has been considered and rejected. Their khata is already divided into 19 plots and the separation of his co-sharer's Wanda will not affect him adversely. Keeping the Khata joint will create B friction and lead to litigation between the two co-sharers. The revision petition is dismissed except to the extent that the shortage in the joint khata of the petitioner and Khia will be made good by the Collector (Cons.).