Mushtaq Ahmad etc Vs POP Through DC etc

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 Muhammad Sadiq, was owner of agricultural land in Mauza 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 petitioners 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

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), 861/62/473 (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 Marlas), within scheme No. 19 situated in Mauza Bhagwala, Tehsil Kamoki, District Gujranwala and land measuring 73 Kanal 10 Marlas was excluded from the Khata of Muhammad Sadiq, and land measuring 93 Kanal 12 Marlas was given to Muhammad Sadiq, the predecessor of the petitioners. 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 Member 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 16.01.1986, which remained pending due to the reason that consolidation of Mauza 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 Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, who accepted the appeal vide order dated 13.07.2012, and the petitioners 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 Mauza 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:

ادنرںی احالت ادتساع ےہ ہک ڈرگی ارقتسار قح قحب دمایعن بر الخف دماع مہیلع ہعم خرہچ دقمہم دبںی ومضمن اصدر دصمرہایڈلنشی ڈیٹپ رنشمکاامتشل16-01-86 ہلصیف ومرہخ/ فرامیئ اجےئکه دمایعنارایض دتموعہی رپ بروےئمکح دصمرہ دعال12.09.12 و13.09.12 ہلصیف اجت ومرہخ/اماکلن اقاضبنےلچ آرےہ ںیہ۔ اور ہکہر دو ااکحم الخفاقوننالخف،دصمرہربمموبرڈآفرویویناجنپب19.03.14انجبایڈلنشیرنشمکرویوینوگخراوناہلاورومرہخ

Civil Revision No.20710/2020 4

الخف راکیرڈ اور اایتخر اک دعمامعتسل وہےن یک انبءرپ اکدعلماور بالط ںیہ۔ ج ہک دمایعن ےک ملکیتیو وبقمہض، وااعقت 463،472،471وقحقبابارایضدتموعہیرپےبابرںیہ۔وطبردادریسزلتسمہمڈرگیدایلخیببابرسخہربمنان زین.اورڈرگیدالباےنزر واالصتیھباصدرفرامیئاجےئ.اصدرفرامیئاجےئ3،2 قحبدمایعنبرالخفدماعمہیلعربمن 16-01-86ہمکحماملوکدہابفرامیئاجےہکوہ ارایضدتموعہیےکبارےںیمدمایعنےکباماطمقبمکحومرہخ .دصمرہایڈلنشیڈیٹپرنشمکاامتشلدلمعرآدمرکے۔درگیدادریسجفرنیااصنفوہیھبدالیئاجےئ 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 petitioners 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,

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 Mauza 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 Consolidation 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 of 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

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 scheme, 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 concludes 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:

دصمره دعب ال انجب30.7.96 ،16-1-86 لڈا دروخاس اسلئ وظنمر یک اجیت ےہ اور اطمقب مکح ومرہخ رٹکلک وگخراوناہل ارگ وکیئ ام امعن ہن وہاوروکیئ اقونین پڈیگ ہن وہوت سح اضہطب قحب دمحم/ ایڈلنشی ڈیٹپ رنشمک اامتشل .اصدقودلاہشوبدلمعرآدمرکےنیکااجزتدیاجیےہ۔لثمذہادعببربیتولیمکتدالخدرتفوہوے 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. However, 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 revenue 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 there 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 consolidation officer, as after finalization of consolidation proceedings, the authorities 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 Tags 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 Consolidation proceedings under consolidation commence.

2 Preparation of record of rights and Existing holdings are valuation of land identified.

3 Determination of valuation units Each owner's entitlement is calculated.

4 Preparation of draft consolidation New allotments (chak) are scheme 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 Scheme attains statutory competent authority approval.

8 Repartition and issuance of New khasra numbers and allotment orders holdings are assigned.

9 Delivery of physical possession Landowners are placed in possession of their new holdings.

10 Correction of revenue record and Proceedings conclude and completion of consolidation consolidation authorities operations 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 issued 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:

اسوقیھبہضبقارایضرپہاراےہآباؤاجڈادےسیہاجدیئاددتموعہیرپہاراہضبقےہدوعیڈرگیفرامبااجوے ۔ 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 Consolidation 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.

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 versus 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

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

land in the consolidation proceedings. On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2008 SCMR 1431 (Muhammad Ajmal and others versus Province of Punjab and others) outrightly declares that any matter which falls within the concept of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, including but not limited to quantum of land, quality of land, classification of land, as well as entitlement and other considerations provided in this law, exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities for decision in the proceedings of consolidation of holdings, and the civil court jurisdiction is rightly declared barred under section 26 of the Ordinance. Therefore, any suit in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is also not maintainable in which the issue relating to adjustment of land and share distribution in consolidation operations, which is the exclusive domain of the consolidation authorities, the civil court could not sit in appeal on them, and the jurisdiction is expressly ousted in terms of section 26 of the Ordinance.

There is one exception: if a party before a civil court can create or establish a case of mala fide, fraud, or want of jurisdiction, which is the exception against section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has also dealt with another scenario in 2013 SCMR 906 (Dildar Ahmad and others versus Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and others), where the jurisdiction of revenue authorities to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the revenue record in terms of the powers contained under section 166 and 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, has been considered intact. Despite that the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, has settled the matter, any such mistake could be settled by the revenue hierarchy after

the consolidation proceedings, as the then consolidation officers have now become functus officio.

21.Keeping the above discussion, this Court conclusively settles that the civil court has no jurisdiction on any matter, including but not limited to the execution claim by the petitioner who is claiming the implementation of the order dated 16.01.1986. In this regard, this Court comes to the conclusion that section 15, which provides the procedure on confirmation of scheme of consolidation, becomes final. Then the consolidation officer shall announce the decision which has become final, and two actions are required to be taken at the end of the scheme for finality and conclusive settlement of the matter:

(a)demarcate the boundaries of the holding, if necessary;

(b)cause to be prepared a new record of rights in accordance with the scheme, and such record of rights shall have the same force as the record of rights which it purports to replace. This is outrightly considered under the provisions contained in section 29 of the Ordinance, which extends to the Board of Revenue the power to make rules for all the subject matters provided in subsection (2)(a) to section 29, and the prescribed rules titled as “Punjab Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1998.” It is seen in the context of rule 39, which deals with the confirmation of consolidation scheme, rule 41, which deals with the issuance of PARCHA HATMI TAQSEEM, whereas rule 43 deals with Intiqal- e-Taqseem, and the consolidation officer, after confirmation of the scheme, attests the Intiqal-e-Taqseem, creating individual rights of the landowners according to fresh distribution of land. Similarly, in order to give effect, the consolidation officers get the boundaries of holdings demarcated, whereas Part VIII deals with MISAL HAQIAT, and rule 45 says that after confirmation of the consolidation scheme, papers/documents shall be prepared as

Civil Revision No.20710/2020 15

prescribed by the Board. Such aspect outrightly confirms the conclusiveness and finality of the entire scheme, including its implementation, and there is no question that the scheme has not been implemented in letter and spirit under the law.

22.Therefore, considering the law, including the barring provision of civil court jurisdiction under section 26, the exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court to entertain the suit relating to any subject of consolidation of holding ordinance, 1960 is contrary to law, and even the orders passed by the Member Board of Revenue as well as the Additional Collector are considered to be illegal where the petitioner has been directed to approach the civil court. In this backdrop, the petitioner has to approach the consolidation hierarchy by all means as the consolidation proceedings have not been conclusively settled as reflected from discussion above. The petitioners are facing a huge challenge of time frame which has been lost in these proceedings, as well as the delay already caused in the previous round. Especially when the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, then what would be the course of action for the petitioner, and what are the mandatory concepts to be looked into by the consolidation hierarchy of consolidation in future, as there are certain changes which have to be recorded by the revenue authorities before going into the implementation scheme of the consolidation matter.

23.Though, considering the objective, I have laid down the test for implementation and consideration of those factors if the decision of the consolidation officer has not been implemented immediately after finality of the consolidation proceedings, then following has to be answered before proceeding further:-

1.Whether original order attained finality.

2.Why it remained unimplemented for such a long time.

3.Whether delay is attributed to the land owner or the state.

4.Whether original revenue estate still exists in substantially same form.

Civil Revision No.20710/2020 16

5.Whether ownership has materially changed through sale, inheritance, etc.

6.Whether implementation would prejudice bona fide of third parties.

7.Whether original scheme has become impossible or impracticable.

8.Whether any new scheme of consolidation launched which is better served the purpose.

9.Whether implementation would advance or defeat the purpose of ordinance.

24.All these questions are relevant to be adjudicated by the consolidation officer, including the reasons for delay in implementation, as the officer has exclusive authority to settle all issues, including but not limited to the implementation of any consolidation scheme, primarily in the spirit of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, which provides the following principles to be considered by all consolidation officers as well as civil courts in this regard while adjudicating the matter relating to consolidation of schemes:

Principles:

1.Consolidation proceedings are statutory proceedings.

2.Consolidation changes possession and location not the ownership.

3.Every proprietor must receive land of substantial equivalent value.

4.Existing mortgages, leases and easements automatically transfer to newly allotted land.

5.No Register Transfer deed is required after confirmation of consolidation scheme.

6.Statutory objections, appeals and revision must ordinarily be exhausted.

7.Civil suits relating to matter entrusted to consolidation authorities are barred under Section 26.

8.Consolidation jurisdiction remains available in exceptional case involving jurisdictional errors, fraud, mala fide or violation of statutory requirements.

In this case, in the preceding paragraphs, I have laid down those factors to be considered by the consolidation officer, and the conclusivity of the consolidation proceedings has not yet been

settled due to pendency of the matter in the previous round as well as in this case. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the consolidation officer is still intact to give effect to the consolidation proceedings in terms of section 15 of the Ordinance under the law. However, the revenue hierarchy is bound to consider those factors which affect the implementation of any decision of the consolidation authorities.

In view of above, instant civil revision stands dismissed with above observations.

Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to pass a direction to the consolidation officers dealing with the application for implementation, if approached by the petitioner side, to adjudicate the same within period of 06-months in accordance with law.

(Mohsin Akhtar Kayani) Judge

Approved for reporting

Judge JahanZaib*