Find a Lawyer

Review Petition No. 165 of 1987, decided on 1st March, 1989.

S.13 West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8Review Additional Commissioner in consolidation revision struck off specified area from the ownership of Abadi Deh of Municipal Committee and handed it over to respondents Additional Commissioner"s order was confirmed by the Board of Revenue Board of Revenue in review petition found that in Register Haqdaran Zamin starting from 1930 onward the name of Municipal Committee was not shown as owner or Qabiz Disputed land was "Maqbuza Abadi Deh" and according to "Wajib ul Arz" of village, petitioners" title with regard to possession to the disputed land had been recognized and accepted Names of petitioners were shown as "Mozarah Tabe Marzi" under the Baldia at the time of preparation of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1973 74, for reasons not easily decipherable Existing entry as "Maqbuza Ahadi Deh" could not be substituted to the name of Baldia Such change of entry had apparently been done with as much intent to benefit the "Baldia" as it had to harm the petitioners Person on whose time barred revision, Additional Commissioner had passed the impugned orders had no locus standi to file that revision because he was neither owner in the past nor at present in the estate, none of his rights had been affected and thus he had no cause of action Board of Revenue accepting review application set aside orders passed by Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner Original Consolidation Scheme passed in 1981 was restored.

Karim Baksh and others v. The State and others P L D 1980 Rev. 55; P L D 1973 Lah. 120; Allah Jawaya v. Muhammad Sharif and others P L D 1987 Rev. 7; P L D 1982 Rev. 111; P L D 1987 Rev. 35; P L D 1982 Rev. 82 and P L D 1983 Rev. 30 ref.

Iftikhar Hussain Khera for Petitioners.

Muhammad Arshad Bukhari and Mian Muhammad Bashir for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1st March, 1989.

This review petition has been filed under section 8 of the Board of" Revenue Act, 1957, against the order dated 30 0 1987, passed by the then learned Member (Cons), whereby he rejected the revision petition of the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of tile case arc that the Consolidation Scheme of the Revenue Estate Ahmed Pur Sharqia, was confirmed by the Consolidation officer, vide his order dated 14 10 1981 under section 10(3) of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The respondent Alta Muhammad moved an application to the Addl. Commissioner (Cons) alleging therein certain allegations against the Consolidation Staff. It was alleged that the name of Municipal Committee, Ahmed Pur Sharqia in the ownership column of jamabandi Zerkar had been truck off and the petitioners were benefited without any justification. The learned Commissioner marked the same to the learned Collector (Cons.) for enquiry and report. The learned Collector examined the record and reported that the application of Atta Muhammad was against the record. The Committee of Ahmed Put Sharqia had no concern with the land of Abadi Deh. He further observed that any aggrieved person should go to the Civil Court. The respondents did not prefer any appeal against the consolidation scheme. After 4 1/2 years, the respondent Alta Muhammad filed a miscellaneous application before the learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons), who vide his order dated 25 2 1985 accepted the prayer of the respondent. The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons) in the Court of the then Member (Cons), Board of Revenue, Punjab, who vide his impugned order rejected the revision petition. Hence this review petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue that the land situated within the limits of Town Committees/Municipal Committee etc., should not be touched in Consolidation Operations. In case it becomes unavoidable to include them in Consolidation Operations, prior permission of the Board of Revenue under section 9(a), Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, should be obtained. In the present case, the Addl. Commissioner (Cons), struck off an area of 18 kanals and 6 marlas from the ownership of the Abadi Dell of the Municipal Committee Ahmed Pur East and handed it over to the present respondents. The Addl. Commissioner (Cons) also acted against the standing instructions issued by the Board of Revenue which required that ownership of the land coming under paths, ponds, mosques, graveyards and Abadi must not be disturbed in Consolidation Operations. According to Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, the ownership of such facilities could not be changed except by consent or in consequence of a decree or order binding on the parties after making necessary entries in the record of rights. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited P L D 1980 Revenue 55, titled "Karim Baksh and others v. The State and others that rights of shamlat created by operation of first regular settlement, could not be subsequently taken away except, or in consequence of a decree or order binding on parties after making entries in record of rights". The impugned order was passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons) on the application of one Atta Muhammad, The latter had nothing to do with the Consolidation Operations. He did not happen to be an "aggrieved party" within the meaning of law entitling him to go up before the Courts seeking redress. He relied on P L D 1973 Lahore 120. Since he did not have any right, none were violated affording Atta Muhammad a cause of action. The only party which could have been aggrieved by the order of the learned Collector (Cons) would be the Municipal Committee of Ahmed Pur East. However, the latter did not go in appeal against the orders confirming the consolidation scheme dated 14 10 1981. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the case cited P L D 1987 Revenue 7 "Allah Jawaya v. Muhammad Sharif etc." In this case it has been held that once the Consolidation is confirmed, possessions arc transferred, Missal e Haqiyat is prepared and record is returned to the Mahal Side, Consolidation Authorities become functus officio. All or any subsequent changes by tile Consolidation Staff become unwarranted. The revision of Atta

Muhammad before the learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons) was time barred to the extent of 4 1/2 years. The learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons) had no Suo Motu powers to entertain the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited P L D 1982 Revenue 10 and P L D 1987 Revenue 35, in support of his contentions. Finally counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the grievance of the petitioners redressed.

4. Rebutting the arguments for the petitioners the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that all these points had already been made by the respondents before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, the review of whose order the counsel for the petitioners, now seeks. These points have been discussed in Para. 2 of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents went on arguing that vide the impugned order the learned Addl. Commissioner (Cons) had "ruled that the position as projected in the Jamahandi "Zerkar" must be respected and the Consolidation Authorities must refrain from incorporating any changes in violation of the Jamabandi "Zerkar". This view of the Addl. Commissioner was upheld by the Board of Revenue, who endorsed the thinking of the Addl. Commissioner. The learned counsel further stated that the present petitioners fraudulently changed entries in the record of rights affording the Addl. Commissioner (Cons) an opportunity to take cognizance of the matter Suo Motu, citations P L D 1982 Rev. 82 and P L D 1983 Rev. 30. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents said that the decisions of the two Courts, namely, the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) and the Member, Board of Revenue, are based on the record and were passed after scrutinizing the record. The contention of the petitioners merits no consideration and the review petition should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for thus parties and examined the record. This case underlines the lack of supervision by the Revenue Staff over the working of the functionaries of the Department. Due to apathy compounded by inefficiency and incompetency of the supervisory staff Patwaris have acquired an unassailable position in the day to day working of the department and the maintenance of the record of tights. To take the present case for instance, in Register Haqdaran Zamin starting from 1930 onwards the name of the Committee was not shown as owner or Qabiz. In the said Register the" disputed land was Maqbuza Abadi Deh and according to Wajab ul Arz of the village, the petitioner"s title with regard to possession to the disputed land has been recognized and accepted. According to Mutation No. 440 the "Qabzeen Abadi Deh were entitled to get its production. At the time of preparation by Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1974 75 for reasons not easily decipherable the names of the petitioners were shown as Mozarah Tabe Marzi under the Baldia Ahmed Pur East. By no stretch of imagination could the name of Baldia substitute the entry as Maqbuza Abadi Deh. This has apparently been done with as much intent to benefit the Baldia as it has to harm the petitioners. If it was the informer there could be still a case. However, the situation is entirely different. Atta Muhammad has no locus standi. He was neither owner in the past nor today in the estate. None of his rights are affected. He has no cause of action. Still he finds it necessary to make an application to the Courts seeking annulment of the Consolidation Operations.

In view of the above, on observing that if a fraud was committed, it would not be at the instance of the petitioners, since they had to gain nothing. In these circumstances, I accept the review petition and set aside the orders passed by the learned Member (Cons), and Addl. Commissioner (Cons). To cut short, the original Consolidation Scheme passed in 1981 is, hereby, restored.

A.A./329/R.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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