Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Ss. 10 & 13‑Member, Board of Revenue allowing deletion of entitle ment of owner of land in a village by consolidation operations whereby ownerships of . Khalsa School (Evacuee Trust Property) ceased to exist‑Respondent (Headmaster of school) pleading land in question to be not property of Central Government and allegedly obtaining allocation of land to his "wanda" in collusion with consolidation staff‑Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) held, rightly remanded case to Collector for fresh decision and rectification of irregularity committed by Consolidation staff after impleading necessary parties to proceedings.

Muhammad Abdus Saleem for Petitioner.

M. Fazal Hussain and Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahla for Respondents.

Date of bearing : 14th January, 1981.

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 28‑1‑1976 passed by the learned Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 1 was accepted and the order of remand passed by the Additional Consolidation) dated 23‑1‑1974 was set aside.

2. The relevant, facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of Chak No. 78 R. B., Tebsil Sheikhupura was confirmed on 28‑12‑1972. The land in dispute comprising field No. 77/21/2,77/22,77/23 and 77/24 measuring 32 kanals 4 marlas was allocated to the wanda of respondent No. 1. The present petitioner and some other person of the village in the year 1971 moved an application against respondent No. 1 that the latter in collusion with the consolidation staff got deceitfully allocated the above mentioned land in his wanda which prior to partition of the sub‑continent belonged to Khalisa School. It was pointed out that the respondent No. 1 (Muhammad Fazil Khan) being Headmaster of the school after independence had been Managing the property and utilizing the income derived therefrom for the school. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) made a report to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and the latter vide order dated 23‑1‑1974 observed that at the time of consolidation the ownership of Khalisa School was omitted while making corresponding entries in the khatauni ishtimal' in respect of the disputed property. The same was shown wrongly as an evacuee property belonging to the Central Government. The case was remanded to the Collector (Consolidation), Sheikhupura to restore the land and set the irregularity right by impleading all the necessary parties. The respondent No. I against the aforementioned order filed revision petition before the learned Member, Board of Revenue which was accepted on 28‑1‑1976,

as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the consolidation staff fraudulently obtained the allocation of the land in dispute in his favour although he was fully aware of the fact that the landing dispute belonged to Khalisa School and was not evacuee property belonging to the Central Government. It was next submitted that the learned Member, Board of Revenue by the impugned order had allowed the respondent No, 1 to reap the benefit of his fraud and to delete the entitlement of an owner of the village by consolidation operation. It was also submitted that the mere fact that only 23 kanals of land scattered at different places in the village was available as against 32 kanals, 4 marlas was not sufficient to remove the entitlement of a land owner with a view to benefit some person who did not approach the consolidation authorities with clean hands. It was lastly submitted that mere lapse of time would not set right an order which was void on the face of the record.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand submitted that the land in dispute was allocated to the wanda of the respondent in lieu of the land surrendered by him from Square No. 45, as such he did not obtain the land fraudulently. It was also submitted that this petition has been filed by a stranger and also after a lapse of about 4 years, therefore extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court be not invoked in his favour. Learned counsel for the Evacuee Trust Property Board, the newly added respondent stated that the learned Member Board of Revenue set aside the order of remand passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) where inquiry was to be conducted afresh, without any justifiable reason. It was also submitted :hat the learned Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to allow deletion of an owner of land in a village by consolidation operations.

5. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that prior to consolidation, the land in dispute was owned by 'Khalisa School' as reflected in the copies of the register haqdaran' for the years 1945, 1952‑53 and 1956‑57. The consolidation staff erroneously showed the disputed property as an evacuee property belonging to the Central Government in the khatauni ishtimal' and thereby allocated the same in favour of the respondent No. 1 in lieu of some land surrendered by him. The ownership of Khalisa School (Evacuee Trust Property), therefore, ceased to exist by act of the consolidation authorities which manifestly was not within their jurisdiction. The respondent No. 1 being Headmaster of the School was aware of the fact that the land in dispute belonged to Khalisa School and was not an evacuee property in the ownership of the Central Government. The allegation that he obtained allocation of land in dispute to his "wanda" in collusion with Consolidation Staff, was not without sub stance. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) rightly remanded the case to the Collector (Constitution) for fresh decision and rectification of the irregularity committed, by the Consolidation Staff after inspleading necessary parties to the proceedings. The learned Member (Board of Revenue) set aside that order and allowed deletion of entitlement of an owner of the village in the consolidation operation, mainly because it would tend to create hardship for respondent No. 1 or would upset the confirmed Consolidation Scheme after a long time. The order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is legally unsustainable and I have no option but to declare it of no legal effect. This petition is accepted with costs.

S, Q, Writ petition accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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