Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
R.O.R. No.646 of 1986, decided on 30th December, 1986.
‑‑‑S.13‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.45‑‑Petitioners claiming entitlement to area in excess of that allotted to them in consolidation proceedings‑‑Jamabandi Zair Kar showing entitlement of petitioners to be slightly less than the area allotted to them in consolidation proceedings‑‑Consolidation authorities, held, were not authorized to go beyond the entries of Jamabandi Zair Kar Petitioner having received excess land as per record, their claim to excess land, held, was not sustainable‑‑Revision against order of Appellate Court claiming excess land, being devoid of merit, was dismissed in circumstances.
Agha Taj Muhammad for Petitioners.
Ch.Subhan Khan for Respondent No.1.
Hameed Asghar Sheikh for Respondent No.2.
This is a revision petition filed a/s. 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 1‑2‑1986 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala, whereby certain adjustments were made in the khata of the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners were owners of 88K‑10M land as per Mutation No.1689. In consolidation they were allotted only 72K‑10M land i.e. 16K less land than their entitlement. He has further contended that the petitioners learnt from the contents of a suit filed by the respondent No.1, in Civil Court where khasra Nos.1262 to 1265 have been transferred to his lot, which were originally owned and possessed by the petitioners. By. that way a great injustice has been done to the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the father of the petitioners in "Khana Kasht" has sold the land measuring 16K much before the consolidation operations: Therefore, the consolidation authorities have no authority to alter or modify, the entries of jamabandi Zairkar. Possessions have since been changed, for example the petitioners have sold 4K land which goes to show that they have accepted their wanda. As such the revision petition is not maintainable.
4. After having heard the arguments of both the parties I have examined the record which reveals that according to jamabandi Zairkar the entitlement of the petitioners were 72K‑10M. In consolidation they have been given 73K‑10M land i.e. more than their entitlement. The A consolidation authorities are not supposed to go beyond the entries of Register Haqdaran Zameen Zairkar. Therefore, as per record the petitioners have received excess land than their entitlement in consolidation operations.
5. In view of the reasons given above there is no substance in the revision petition. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.
A. A./227/R Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer