Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NUSRRAT KHAN AND 3 OTHERS VS Respondent: AMIR KHAN AND 4 OTHERS
Court Name: Board of Revenue Judge(s): Muhammad Aslam Avais Title: NUSRRAT KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs AMIR KHAN AND 4 OTHERS Case No.: R. O. R. No, 1193 of 1972-73, Date of Judgment:1977-02-16 Reported As: PLD 1977 Rev. 11 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 7-6-1973 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons), Sargodha whereby the appeal of the respondents was accepted and certain adjustments were made in the Khata of the parties. 2. I have heard the parties and examined the record. 3. This revision petition is defective for non-joinder of ten co-sharers in Scheme No, 39 pertaining to respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, I have examined the case of the petitioner on merits. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that contrary to what has been stated in the impugned order they never agreed to exchange land with the respondents. Therefore the changes made by the Addl. Commisioner (Cons.) in his impugned order are illegal. 5. The record shows that khasra numbers 16 (8-K) of Square No, 180 and Khasra Nos. 10/1(4K), 11(8K), 12/1(4K-12M), 19 (6K-5M) and 20 (8K) of Square No, 181 (total area 38K.-17M) were excluded from the Khata of the petitioners and in lieu thereof Khasra Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 13 and 18-min of Square No, 219 (total area 38K-17M) were allotted to the petitioners under the impugned order. The area allotted to the petitioners was formerly owned and possessed by them. Therefore, the changes made by the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) through his impugned order were quite fair and proper. The petitioners have also received 8eK-10M in Class I, 38K-17M in Class II and 8K in Class III land (118K-13M in terms of Class I) as against 74K-8M in Class I, 54K-8M in Class II and 2K-7M in Class III (116K-8M in terms of Class I) before consolidation. The petitioners have thus received 2K-5M (in terms of Class I) in excess of their entitlement. They have also been given sufficient area in Class I. They have also received an additional plot of shamlat area in Kbasra No, 19 of Square No, 54. In these
---
## Page 2
circumstances no injustice has been done to the petitioners and I find no reason to interfere in the matter. The revision petition, is therefore, dismissed.