Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 454 of 1962‑63, decided on 3rd April 1963, District Lyallpur.

-----

-----‑Scattered plots of co‑sharers brought together during consolidation proceedings and joint khata partitioned as desired by co‑sharers Proceedings governed by West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960) and not by Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887).

-----

----Compensation‑Question of compensation not raised when scheme was taken into consideration-- Cannot be considered in revision.

A. K. Lodi for Petitioner.

Saeed Khan for Malik Mohammad Akram and Rao Muhammad Ashfaq Khan for Respondents.

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 30th of October 1962 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolida tion), Sargodha, whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was jointly confirmed an area of 1,880 kanals and 13 marlas. The petitioner was absent but his co‑sharer, Muhammad Sharif signed the khata.

Later on, the petitioner and Sardar Mohammad respondents preferred separate appeals against, the confirmation before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) but the appeals were rejected. Hence this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the point that Mahmood Shah was not a party. It is true that that he was absent but his co‑sharer, Mohammad Sharif was a party to the proceedings. He signed the khata twice.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised an objec tion that, in this case, consolidation did not take place but there was actual partition. I do not see any force in this contention because hissadari possession of the various co‑sharers was scattered and, during consolidation operations, scattered plots were brought together. The joint khata was partitioned according to the wishes of the parties concerned. These proceedings are governed by the Consolidation Act and not by the Land Revenue Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner got less area of good quality land. This contention has no force either because the consolidation was effected without any regard to classification of soil and previous possession.

Finally the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that no compensation was given about good quality of lane or trees. The question of compensation of trees does not arise now because it was not raised when the scheme was taken into consideration.

The learned counsel for Muhammad Sharif also wanted to be heard. He has not filed any revision against the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner' (Consolidation) unless those orders are likely to be interfered with, he has no right to be heard.

Having considered all aspects of the case, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.