Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.537 of 1981, decided on 28th April, 1987.

--S.11--Appeal--Limitation--Petitioners, whose claim to entitlement satisfied on merits, contending that appeal was filed by respondent before Collector (Consolidation) after period of limitation which was accepted Without giving any cogent reason for condoning delay--Orders passed by revisional authorities below showing that though question of limitation was taken up in grounds of revision before them yet it found no mention in judgments of both the revisional authorities; giving rise to presumption that point of limitation had not been specifically pressed at time of arguments--Petitioners' entitlement on merits even otherwise was duly satisfied and there was no grievance- Interference declined on question of limitation.

C. A. Rehman for Petitioners.

Malik Muhammad Rashid Awan for Respondent No.4.

Date of hearing: 28th April, 1987.

The petitioners have questioned vires of the order dated 1-7-1980, passed in revision petitions ROR No.291/80 and ROR No.1937/80 by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the present writ petition are that consolidation scheme of Chak Nizam, Tehsil & District Gujranwala was confirmed by Assistant Consolidation Officer on 30-12-1976. Respondent No.4, feeling aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before Collector (Consolidation), Gujranwala on 6-12-1977, inter alia, on the ground of proximity of his land to the village abadi, which was taken away in the consolidation proceedings, and in lieu thereof, the land allotted to him was distantly located. This appeal was accepted on 11-6-1979 whereby 11 kanals of land was withdrawn, from Khasra No.850 (8 kanals) and from khasra No.851-Min-West (3 kanals) from respondent No.4's entitlement and was given to petitioners. Against this, respondent No.4 was given equivalent amount of land in khasra No. 1205-Min-South, 4 kanals 13 marlas, Khasra No. 1206-Min-South, 2 kanals and khasra No.1209-Min North, 4 kanals 7 marlas. Both the petitioners as well as respondent No.4, feeling aggrieved by this order, preferred two separate revision petitions before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore. The revision petition of respondent No.4 was accepted while that of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 13-11-1979. Respondent No.4's revision was accepted to the extent that in khasra No.851-Min-West, 5 kanals and from khasra No. 850-Min-North, 2 kanals 2 marlas was withdrawn and in lieu thereof, he was given khasra No.1205-Min, measuring 2 kanals 18 marlas and from khasra No.1206-Min, 4 kanals 4 marlas. Both the petitioners as well as the respondent No.4 impugned this order before the learned Member, Board of Revenue in revision petition No. ROR-1937/80 and No. ROR 291/80. Both these revision petitions were dismissed by the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vide his order dated 1-7-1980. Hence this petition.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that petitioners, before consolidation, were holding land measuring 524 kanals 8 marlas which was spread over 25 plots; whereas after consolidation, petitioners were allotted land measuring 520 kanals, 19 marlas spread over 5 plots making it fairly compact unit.

The learned counsel for petitioners in all fairness stated that on facts as to entitlement etc, their claim has been satisfied. However, he hinges his contention on the question of limitation Precise contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that respondent No.4 filed an appeal before Collector (Consolidation), after a period of nearly nine months, which was accepted without giving any cogent reason for condoning the delay; that the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) has equally erred in accepting the same vide his order dated 13-11-1979 and likewise, the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue has also fallen into an error, by not adverting to the question of limitation.

4. I have examined the grounds of revision filed before the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) as well as the learned Member, Board of Revenue and the orders passed by the two revisional authorities. It transpires that though the question of limitation was taken up in the grounds of revision, before two forums, but it finds no mention in the judgments of both revisional authorities. The presumption would be that this point has not been specifically pressed at the time of the arguments. Since on 'merits, as stated by the learned counsel for petitioners in all fairness, that the entitlement of petitioners has been duly satisfied and there is no grievance on merits; therefore, it is not a case in which interference may be called for.

5. There is another aspect of the matter. The learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) while passing order in revision on 13-11-1979, though gave an area of 4 kanals, 4 marlas in khasra No.1206-Min to respondent No.4, without realising that the same had already stood allotted to respondents No.l and 2 in writ petition No.10071/81 (Barkat and Sadiq), which was not questioned in any legal proceedings and stood implemented. The above referred Barkat and Sadiq were neither parties to those proceedings, nor this fact of earlier allotment in their favour was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Commissioner by the department. The learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue equally remained in the dark in this behalf. Therefore, it appears that respondent No.4, though was allotted an area of 4 kanals, 4 marlas in khasra No. 1206-Min by the learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 13-11-1979 which was upheld by the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide his order dated 1-7-1980 in revision, but in fact it was never given to him, since the order of allotment of the Collector (Consolidation) dated 1-11-1977 in favour of the above mentioned Sadiq and Barkat stood implemented and was given effect to.

6. If that be so, that is though land measuring 4 kanals and 4 marlas, which although on papers is stated to have been given to respondent No.4, but in actual fact, his entitlement to this extent is yet to be satisfied; then it is directed that equivalent area of land be given to respondent No. 4. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

M.Y.H./M-198/L 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.