Law: West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)

Section: 10 , 3

West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)--- ----Ss.   10   &   3---Consolidation proceedings---Consolidation operation in respect of village in question was stopped on a written direction of Minister concerned as according to him village was already consolidated satisfactorily---Secretary Consolidation on application of aggrieved person directed Consolidation Officer to complete consolidation according to Rules---Consolidation Officer after spot inspection concluded that more than 51% land-owners were in favour of consolidation---Secretary Consolidation, on the other hand, on his visit to village found that record of village was taken for consolidation without obtaining consent of land-owners as required under law---In view of contradictory stances one taken by Secretary Consolidation who negated consent of majority and other taken by Consolidation Officer who had stated that more than 51% persons of village were in favour of consolidation, case was remitted to Secretary Consolidation to decide afresh after spot inspection. Irfan Masood Sheikh for Petitioners. Noor Ahmad, Consolidation Officer, Narowal/Shakargarh in person. Mirza Nazir Ahmad, Asstt. Consolidation, M.B.R., Punjab.   Date of hearing: 7th March, 1993. JUDGMENT Petitioners who are 139 in number have filed this Constitutional petition against the order dated 2-1-1991 of the Board of Revenue, Punjab through which consolidation operation has been stayed on the ground that the same was initiated without obtaining consent of the majority of the land owners. It is the case of the petitioners that the village Karial, Tehsil Shakargarh was never., put under consolidation. The consolidation operation was initiated on the application of the majority of the land-owners. However, the same was stopped on a written direction of the Minister for Local Government and Rural Development, Punjab dated 16-5-1990 as according to him the village was already consolidated satisfactorily (Annex-B). Faced with this situation the petitioners again approached the Board of Revenue and the Secretary (Consolidation)   through   his  …