Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DALAL VS Respondent: KHAN FARZIND ALI
P L D 1964 W
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 118
Before I. U. Khan, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
DALAL AND OTHERS‑Petitioners
Versus
Khan FARZIND ALI‑Respondent
Revision No. 163 of 1961‑62, decided on 10th October 1962, District Montgomery.
Consolidation of holdings----
----‑Party already holding land in compact block‑Not to be disturbed in order to give another party one compact block instead of two.
Ch. Feroze Din and Ch. Manzoor Hussain for Petitioners.
Mahmud‑ul‑Haq Thanvi for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 7th of February 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent.
2. Facts of the case are that the A. C. O. proposed to give land to the petitioners in square No. 58 in lieu of their land in square No. 61 and 62. The petitioners did not agree and the case was, therefore, referred to the A. D. C. who accepted the objection of the petitioners and allowed them to retain their original holdings. The respondent went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner who accepted the appeal and restored the original proposal made by the A. C. O.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. The learned Additional Commissioner was under a misapprehension, that before the A. C. O. the petitioners or their representative had agreed to have land in square No. 58. It is also borne out by the record that the land in square No. 58 is inferior although the learned counsel for the respondent says that it is a better quality: Even if I concede the point urged by the learned counsel for the respondent the respondent can Have better quality of land and let petitioners to be contended with having their original land of inferior quality. Before consolidation the respondent had land in 5 blocks, According to the proposals made by the A. D. C. he would have land in 2 blocks. There appears to be no justification for depriving the petitioners of their original holding, which is already in a compact block, for giving land to the respondent in one compact block instead of two. In these circumstances I accept the revision, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that the orders given by the Additional Deputy Commissioner shall be implemented.
S. Q. Revision accepted.