Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court, officially reported as 2026 LHC 4741. In this matter between Mushtaq Ahmad etc and POP Through DC etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) DECISION DATE: 02-07-2026 TAGLINE: Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred in Consolidation Matters under Section 26?Implementation of Consolidation Scheme Lies Within Exclusive Domain of Revenue Authorities?Consolidation Proceedings: Finality, Implementation, and Functus Officio Explained?Civil Revision Dismissed: Remedy Lies Before Consolidation Officer, Not Civil Court. Scope and Limits of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Land Consolidation Disputes?Statutory Scheme of Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 Interpreted?Delay in Implementation of Consolidation Scheme?Factors for Determination Laid Down?Exclusive Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities Reaffirmed by High Court?Guidelines Issued for Adjudication of Long-Pending Consolidation Implementation Claims?Six-Month Timeline Directed for Decision by Consolidation Authorities. ? CASE DETAILS: Civil Revision 20710/20 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38

Judgment Sheet IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Civil Revision No.20710 of 2020 Mushtaq Ahmad, etc. versus Province of Punjab, etc.

Date of hearing 02.07.2026

Petitioners by M/s Muhammad Maqsood Buttar & Adnan Ahmad, Advocates.

Respondents by M/s Uzma Razzaq, M. Mushtaq Mohal, Shafique Ahmad, Rai M. Naeem Kharal, & Miss Saeeda Kanwal, Advocates.

Rana Shamshad Khan, Addl.A.G

Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J. Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020, passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the suit of the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner's predecessor -in-interest, namely M uhammad Sadiq, was owner of agricultural land in M auza Bhagwala, Tehsil Kamoki, District Gujranwala, and consolidation proceedings were carried out in the year 1981, which were confirmed on 29.09.1981 by the consolidation officers. The said consolidation proceedings have been challenged by the predecessor of the petitioner s before the Collector Consolidation by filing an appeal, and similarly the other residents of the area who have been affected by the said order also filed appeals against the confirmation of consolidation order, whereby the Collector Consolidation, Gujranwala, adjudicated all four appeals by a single order dated 16.01.1986. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was declared entitled to land measuring Civil Revision No.20710/2020 2

93 Kanal 12 Marlas in Khasra No. 501 (8 Kanal), in Khasra No. 503 (8 Kanal), in Khasra No. 470 (8 Kanal), 471 (8 Kanal), 472 (8 Kanal), 86 1/62/473 (8 Kanal), in Khasra No. 493 (8 Kanal), in Khasra No. 257 (7 Kanal 8 Marlas), in Khasra No. 258 (4 Kanal 6 Marlas), in Khasra No. 463/2 -2 (2 Kanal 2 Marlas), Khasra No. 499 (8 Kanal), Khasra No. 504 (8 Kanal), and Khasra No. 502 (7 Marlas, 16 Marla s), within scheme No. 19 situated in M auza Bhagwala, Tehsil Kamoki, District Gujranwala and land measuring 73 Kanal 1 0 Marlas was excluded from the Khata of Muhammad Sadiq, and land measuring 93 Kanal 12 Marlas was given to M uhammad Sadiq, the predecessor of the petitioner s. Later on, the Collector Consolidation, on 04.02.1987, in Appeal No.433/86 titled “Riasat Ali, etc. versus Ahmad Din , etc., again amended the scheme of the petitioner's predecessor, and pursuant to the said order, Khasra Nos.257, 258, 463, 861, 862, 473, 470 were excluded from the scheme. Thereafter, another round of litigation was started with the Mem ber Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Punjab, and the matter was remanded by order dated 05.10.1995 to the Collector Consolidation, Gujranwala, who again decided the appeals on 30.07.1996 and dismissed the appeals accordingly, and the original order dated 16.01.1986 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) stood in the field. 3. The father of the petitioner filed an application for implementation of the order dated 16.01.19 86, which remained pending due to the reason that consolidation of M auza Bhagwala was under litigation before different revenue authorities. However, after the demise of the petitioner's father, Mutation No.232 dated 16.03.2009 and Mutation No.233 dated 16.03.2009 were sanctioned in the name of petitioners and legal heirs of late Muhammad Sadiq, who became owners in possession of the Civil Revision No.20710/2020 3

subject land, and the application for implementation of the order dated 16.01.1986 was accepted by the Additional District Collector, Gujranwala, who, vide order dated 24.05.2012, accepted the same. Respondent No. 4 challenged the order before the Addition al Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 13.07.2012, and the petitioner s side filed a review petition before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2012. 4. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Lahore, which was dismissed on 19.03.2014 with the observation that “the application for implementation of order was moved so belatedly after lapse of more than a quarter of a century, and after confirmation of the scheme and return of M auza to the Mahal side, a number of Jamabandies had been prepared and longstanding revenue records were involved, which cannot be changed by revenue courts in a summary manner, and only the civil court is competent to take cognizance of the matter through evidence. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, which are upheld, and the review petition in hand is thereby dismissed.” 5. Pursuant to the direction of the last order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore, the petitioner filed a civil suit before the civil court at Gujranwala for declaration and also seeking possession of the land with the following prayer: رچہ مقدمہ بدیں مضمون صادر

اندریں حالات استدعا ہے کہ ڈگری استقرار حق بحق مدعیان ب ر خلاف مدعا علیہم معہ خ رمائی جائے که مدعیان اراضی متدعویہ پر ب روئے حکم / فیصلہ مورخہ

ف86-01 -16 مصدرہ ای ڈیشنل ڈپٹی کمشنر اشتمال مالکان قابضان چلے آرہے ہیں۔ اور کہ ہ ر دو احکام / فیصلہ جات مورخہ 13.09.12 و12.09.12 مصدرہعدال جناب ای ڈیشنل کمشنر ریونیو گوخ رانوالہ اور مورخہ 19.03.14 مصدرہ ممبر بورڈ آف ریونیو پنجاب، خلاف قانون خلاف Civil Revision No.20710/2020 4

واقعات ، خلاف ریکارڈ اور اختیار کا عدم ستعمال ہونے کی بناء پر کالعدم اور ب اطل ہیں۔ ج ی و مقبوضہ کہ مدعیان کے ملکی ت حقوق ب اب اراضی متدعویہ پر بے اب ر ہیں ۔ بطور دادرسی مستلزمہ ڈگری دخلیابی ب اب خسرہ نمبران 471،472،463 بحق مدعیان ب ر خلاف مدعا علیہم نمبر 2،3 ر

صادر فاور ڈگری دلا ب انے زر رمائی جائے

واصلات بھی صادر ف. نیز رمائی

محکمہ مال کو ہداب ف جاے کہ وہ اراضی متدعویہ کےب ارے میں مدعیان کے ب ام مطابق حکم مورخہ 86-01-16 رین ا

مصدرہ ای ڈیشنل ڈپٹی کمشنر اشتمال عملدرآمد کرے ۔ دیگر دادرسی ج ف نصاف ہو بھی دلائی جائے. The suit was contested by the respondents, and issues were framed thereafter. Both sides recorded their evidence through their witnesses, and the petitioner side also produced documentary evidence as Exh. P1 to Exh. P14, whereas the respondent side recorded the evidence of two witnesses and produced the record as Exh.D1 only. The trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 partially, and the claim of possession was declined, whereas the appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, reversed the same and dismissed the suit. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner s contends that after conclusion of the consolidation proceedings, which culminated in the final order dated 16.01.1986 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), possession has not been delivered in accordance with law, and the order has not been implemented. Therefore, an application was filed for implementation of the same by the late father of the petitioner, Muhammad Sadiq, and some of the Khasra numbers have been taken over by the respondents so, the claim of possession was also included in the final prayer, which was declined, though the implementation order was passed by the trial court in accordance with law, and the appellate court has gone wrong while settling the legal proposition. The appellate court is not allowed to go into the affairs of the consolidation proceedings, Civil Revision No.20710/2020 5

as such jurisdiction is not available to the appellate court in any manner, as the consolidation order has already attained finality. 7. Conversely, the learned counsels for the respondent side, as well as the learned AAG, opposed the instant Civil Revision primarily on the ground that the scheme provided in terms of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is clear from all angles, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in terms of section 26 of the Ordinance in respect of any matter, including the implementation claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the revision be dismissed accordingly. 8. Arguments heard. Record perused. 9. Perusal of record reflects that the entire dispute in this case revolves around the implementation of the consolidation order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 16.01.1986 under the consolidation scheme, wherein the petitioner's predecessor, Muhammad Sadiq son of Shabu caste Jatt, has been declared entitled to 93 Kanals 12 Marlas of land in different Khasra numbers situated at M auza Bhagwala, Tehsil Kamoki, District Gujranwala. Though later on, pursuant to the decision passed in Appeal No .412 of 1983 titled “Muhammad Sadiq versus Muhammad Din” along with “Riasat Ali versus Ahmad Din” , the scheme stood amended, and Khasra Nos. 257, 258, 463, 861, 862, 473, 470 were excluded from scheme No.19, and as a result approximately 27 Kanals were reduced. However, the order was not implemented, and as per the stance of the petitioner, an application was filed by the late father of the petitioner, which remained pending with the consolidation authorities due to multiple appeals, which were finally adjudicated in the second round by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. 10. The petitioner's application was also dismissed primarily on the ground that much time had lapsed and certain changes had Civil Revision No.20710/2020 6

occurred during this period of 25 years, and as a result the court of competent jurisdiction could be approached only. Therefore, the moot point in these proceedings as well as in the case before this Court is with regard to section 26 of the Punjab Consol idation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the same is reproduced as under: No civil court shall entertain any suit or application to obtain a decision or order in respect of any matter which Government or the Board of Revenue or any officer is, by this Ordinance, empowered to determine, decide, or dispose of.

On a plain reading of this provision of law, it is necessary to consider the legislative intent drawn in this provision, but first this Court has to see the mandate of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, which has been enacted pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation of 07.10.1958 under the instructions of the President, the Governor of West Pakistan, and the very purpose of the Ordinance is to consolidate the proprietary rights in the immovable property, which have been scattered in the revenue estate. 11. This special statute is enacted with the object of removing fragmentation of agricultural holdings and redistribution, which were scattered in parcels, into compact blocks for better cultivation, irrigation, and agricultural management. Therefore, the intent is to improve agricultural efficiency while safeguarding proprietary rights of the landowners. Considering this objective, the Ordinance provides the concept of consolidation in a precise manner, where a scheme has to be prepared for consolidation o f holdings either on the application of the landowners or by the consolidation officer and adjudicate considering the nature of the land by categorizing the land into different classes. The Ordinance provides the mechanism of publication of the scheme, settlement of objections thereto, and its confirmation. All the parties have a right to object to the scheme, and their objections are decided Civil Revision No.20710/2020 7

accordingly. Even in the final round of consolidation, section 11 provides an appeal to an aggrieved person by an order of the consolidation officer confirming the scheme, who is allowed to challenge the same within 60 days before the Collector. Similarly, a second appeal from the order of the Collector passed on an appeal under subsection (1) of section 11 is also provided to the Commissioner within 60 days from the date of the order. 12. On the other end concept of payment of compensation is provided in section 12, where as a result of redistribution of land, if the valuation of land is not equitable, then compensation should be granted. The procedure on confirmation in terms of section 15 confirms that the scheme of consolidation becomes final, and the scheme is announced, which is final in all respects, and boundaries have to be demarcated in the holdings if necessary, and a new record of rights is to be prepared in accordance with the sc heme, which is the final concept of implementation. 13. In other words, the revenue officer in this hierarchy is also equipped to prevent encroachment on the way or path shown in the new records, and a summary ejectment may also be available in terms of section 18-A of the Ordinance. However, considering the primary scheme, there is no denial to the concept that ownership has not been changed except redistribution, and shifting of location is required in terms of the scheme if agreed by the landowners or, in case of disagreement, the consolidation officer co ncludes the same, subject to final decision of the appellate authorities. 14. I have confronted learned counsel for the petitioners side as to why the application for implementation has been filed, as the scheme itself is applicable when it attains finality, and he has to explain the legality of the order which was passed on 24.05.2012 by the Additional District Collector, Gujranwala, which confirms the acceptance of the application for implementation of the order Civil Revision No.20710/2020 8

dated 16.01.1986 and 30.07.1996 with the following concluding remarks: ل ڈا درخواس سائل منظور کی جاتی ہے اور مطابق حکم مورخہ 86-1-16،30.7.96 مصدره بعد ال جناب ای ڈیشنل ڈپٹی کمشنر اشتمال / کلکٹر گوخ رانوالہ اگر کوئی ام مانع نہ ہواورکوئی قانونی پ ڈگی نہ ہوتو حس ضابطہ بحق محمد صادق ولد شہابورتیب و تکمیل داخل دفتر ہو

عملدرآمد کرنے کی اجازت دی جای ہے۔ مثل ہذا بعد بو ے.

Even the petitioner, during the course of arguments, admitted this fact that they are in possession of the land which has been settled by way of scheme No.19 by the consolidation officer, and during the past few years they are enjoying the property. Howeve r, they have been dispossessed of some portion of the property for which a prayer has been made with regard to Khasra Nos. 463, 472, 471 against the respondent. Therefore, I have confronted the counsel to demonstrate from any evidence or record of a revenu e officer in this case who confirms that they have been put in possession pursuant to scheme No.19 of the consolidation officer, which was concluded on 16.01.1986. But surprisingly, no revenue officer has been called as a witness in this case, and even the re is no khasra girdawari reflecting that the petitioners were ever in possession of any property. 15. The question of possession could not be settled by the courts below on the basis of the required standard in such type of cases, rather the claim of possession of part of land has already been rejected by the court below. Even the question of possession after the conclusion or finality of the scheme has no bearing on the concept of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, nor does it fall within the jurisdiction of the con solidation officer, as after finalization of consolidation proceedings , the authorit ies cannot re -open the concluded scheme except where the statute itself authorizes such action, and they become functus officio under the law, as held in 1992 SCMR 1 (Mir Ali and 8 others versus K.B Civil Revision No.20710/2020 9

Dil Akram Khan (deceased) through legal heirs and others), PLD 1973 Lahore 829 (Khushi Muhammad versus Tag s Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and 3 others) , PLD 1982 REV 2 (Muhammad Din and 3 others versus The State, etc), 1993 MLD 1643 (Abdul Ghani versus Abdul Ghafoor and others), PLD 1987 Rev 29 (Allah Jawaya versus Muhammad Sharif and others), PLD 2016 Lahore 306 (Ahmed Din and 8 others versus Member Consolidation, Board of Revenue Punjab and 13 others) . Considering the above mentioned judgments as the subject in terms of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the consolidation officer or any other Court if considering the case relating to consolidation, it is imperative to understand the stage - wise completion of the entire process under the ordinance of 1960 to call the closure of consolidation proceedings, and as a result thereof the officials become functus officio. Practical procedure for implementation of a consolidation scheme The following sequence reflects the statutory scheme under the Ordinance. Stage Practical step Legal consequence 1 Notification declaring the area under consolidation Consolidation proceedings commence. 2 Preparation of record of rights and valuation of land Existing holdings are identified. 3 Determination of valuation units Each owner's entitlement is calculated. 4 Preparation of draft consolidation scheme New allotments (chak) are proposed. 5 Publication of draft scheme Right of objections accrues to landowners. 6 Hearing and decision of objections Scheme may be modified. 7 Confirmation of scheme by competent authority Scheme attains statutory approval. 8 Repartition and issuance of allotment orders New khasra numbers and holdings are assigned. 9 Delivery of physical possession Landowners are placed in possession of their new holdings. 10 Correction of revenue record and completion of consolidation operations Proceedings conclude and consolidation authorities become functus officio. Civil Revision No.20710/2020 10

In view of above stage -wise concept of possession was delivered by consolidation officer to the concerned person pursuant to scheme of consolidation then after possession, mutation and correction of revenue record shall be prepared and copies thereof be i ssued e.g. Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari , Shajra, Musavi and other revenue record then consolidation operation stand complete but surprisingly, no such documents have been brought on record. I have also confronted the petitioner side with regard to the evidence of Mushtaq Ahmad, PW -1, whose final words are as under: بھی قبضہ اراضی پر ہ ارا اس وقآب اؤ اج ڈاد سے ہی جائیداد متدعویہ رماب ا جاوے

پر ہ ارا قبضہ ہے دعوی ڈگری ف ۔ It confirms that he is admitting the possession of the property. Then the entire superstructure raised by the petitioner is not to be considered in any manner, and the issue can only be considered applicable to be settled by way of procedure on confirmation in terms of section 15 of the Conso lidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, in which after announcement of a decision: (i) demarcate the boundaries of the holding, if necessary; (ii) cause to be prepared a new record-of-rights in accordance with the scheme. 16. These two concepts of implementation exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the consolidation officer, and in this regard section 26 comes into limelight, which prohibits the civil court from exercising jurisdiction, and the Member, Board of Revenue, as well as the Additional Collector and the Collector in the relevant decisions have gone wrong by referring the matter to the civil court. 17. Now adverting to Section 26 of Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the language plays an important role as the word “No” has been used by the legislature in this provision, hence, where the provision is ordinarily expressed in Negative language. Civil Revision No.20710/2020 11

As per settled principle of interpretation of statute applied to explain negative words are ordinarily prohibitory, imperative and mandatory unless the context or legislative intent clearly indicates otherwise. The courts ordinarily have no discretion to ignore or dilute such prohibition. Such language express mandatory approach and any act done in contravention is liable to be treated as invalid even “No” is considered to stronger than “Shall” and if any section of law starts with “ No Court Shall” it creates a much stronger indication of an absolute prohibition in this regard, reliance has been placed upon (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases 424 (Mannalal Khetan and others versus Kedar Nath Kethan and others), (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 705 “Rani Kusum versus Kanchan Devi (SMT) and others) & (1976) 2 Supreme Court Cases 953 (Lachmi Narain and others versus Union of India, etc). 18. Now adverting to the preposition where law has provided that “ No civil court shall entertain any suit ” reflect very strict prohibition for which the scheme of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 provided complete process and hierarchy , other than civil court. In order to resolve the controversy with regard to section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction or not, it is a question to be settled by way of a test in which the primary objective of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, is to be looked into. With regard to its purpose and intent of the law, a detailed view with regard to this law has been rendered by the Lahore High Court in W.P. No.895 of 2016, “Malik Khan v ersus Member (Judicial- VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, etc .” 2023 MLD 448 Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench). When the legislature has put the word “No” in any section of law with a negative connotation like in section 26 of the Civil Revision No.20710/2020 12

ordinance, it has a different meaning which primarily discloses an absolute bar which cannot be over -ridden by any other concept unless an exception has been provided. 19. While applying interpretation discussed above, the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, confers the complete scheme of consolidation in a modern manner provided therein, and application by some of the landowners may be filed, or where application for consolidation of holdings has been considered by the consolidation officers in any estate or a subdivision, and the same could be rejected or admitted in terms of section 7 and section 8 of the Ordinance respectively. In section 9, there is preparation of scheme for consolidation of holdings and appointment of an advisory committee, and similarly, section 9A gives rise to a scenario where the Board of Revenue may, in the public interest, direct by general or special order, exclude or include any land or holding or class thereof in any scheme of consolidation before it is confirmed. Then there is a mechanism of publication of scheme under section 10 of the Ordinance, and when the matter has been finalized and a party feels aggrieved, then section 11 comes into play, which provides an appeal confirming the scheme within 60 days to a Collector, and similarly, a second appeal has been provided under subsection (2) of section 11 of the Ordinance to the Commissioner, and thereafter no appeal or revision lies from any order passed under this Ordinance. 20. In such eventuality, the bar contained in section 26 precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by a civil court, particularly with reference to the subject matter of the Holding Ordinance, 1960. In this regard, the Lahore High Court in PLD 2016 Lahore 306 (Ahmed Din and 8 others versus Member Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Punjab and 13 others) outrightly deprecated the concept of constitutional remedy to an aggrieved person for allocation of Civil Revision No.20710/2020 13

land in the consolidation proceedings. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2008 SCMR 1431 (Muhammad Ajmal…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant