' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Writ Petitions Nos. 2362 of 2006 and 2379 of 2006 are being decided together as both involve common questions of law and facts.
2. The Revisional Court has only relied upon the notice of Talb-iIshhad, to hold that the price of the property mentioned therein, is Rs,4,30,000, however, the learned counsel for the respondents states,that there have been enquiries by the Anti-Corruption Department and the D.C.O., through which it stands established, that the original "parth" has been changed because in the "parthsarkar" the price of the property is mentioned as Rs,1,30,000, it is also stated, that as per Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari, the District Council fee and the mutation fee, has been deposited according to the above value. However, when questioned, these facts have not been examined by the learned Revisional Court, and obviously, in the absence of such, no effective decision would have been given, it is not disputed. Resultantly, by setting aside the impugned order, I direct the learned Revisional Court to re-decide the matter after looking into all the factors, which are propounded by the parties, to ,determine as to what was the actual price of the property, and whether Zar-e-Soim should have been paid by the petitioner at Rs,1,30,000 or Rs,4,30,000. The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 17-5-2006. These petitions are accordingly allowed.
' With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the case if withdrawn from the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge concerned and the matter is entrusted to the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mianwali, to decide the matter himself.