TARIQ YUSUF, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).- This order shall dispose of all these eight review petitions as these are directed against the same order and contain identical issues of law/fact.
2. These review petitions have come-up against order, dated 13.10.2001 of Member (Judicial-Ill), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
3. Brief facts are that consolidation scheme of village Mitha Tiwana, Tehsil and District Khushab was confirmed by Consolidation Officer on . 28.12.1975. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauherabad vide order, dated 15.7-1998 issued warrant of possession in favour of respondents in respect of land allocated to them during consolidation. Appeal of the petitioner against this order was accepted by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division vide order, dated 2.3.1999. Respondent's revisions against this order were accepted by Member (Judicial-Ill), Board of Revenue. Hence the present review.
4. Arguments heard. Case record seen.
5. Argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner continued in possession of disputed land as owners and delivery of possession to respondents under Section 18 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 was unwarranted.
6. Arguments on behalf of respondents is that respondents are entitled to possession of land allocated to them in consolidation, petitioner's claim to purchase is baseless and village after consolidation has been returned to Mahal side.
7. Impugned order is not maintainable on following grounds. First, Mutation No. 1421 and 1424 were entered subsequent to purchase by petitioners of said land. Second, petitioners continued in possession of said land even after consolidation was confirmed on 28,12.1975. Third, sale was completed in all aspects of the law and right of petitioners was thereby created. Fourth, rights which are created are not affected and persons who are allotted the land have to be put in possession of the same. Fifth, petitioner's were to step into the shoes of respondents on the basis of sale and thereby petitioners were entitled to possession. Sixth, there was no litigation regarding title of said land between parties as petitioners were not right holders in said village. Seventh, claim lodged by respondents was time-barred.
8. I, therefore, accept all these eight review petitions and recall order, dated 13.10.2001.