' This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Rawalpindi, dated 11-3-1981, whereby be dismissed the revision of the petitioner both on merits as well as on the point of limitation.
2. Briefly, the consolidation scheme of village Fatehpur, Tehsil and District Gujrat was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 19-10-1976. The petitioner resisted the scheme by way of appeal before the Collector (Consolidation), who remanded the case to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for the re-adjustment of the wandas, vide his order, dated 13-10-1977. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents Fazaldad etc. Filed Appeal No, 112 of 1977, before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), which was accepted on 12-7-1978 and the remand order of the Collector (Consolidation) reversed on the ground that the parties had entered into a compromise.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed another- appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) demanding restoration of his previous land but failed on 20-10-1979. He then approached the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) by a revision petition, which was dismissed on 11-3-1981 both on merits as well as on the point of limitation. It is against this order that the petitioner has now come in revision before this Court:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in another revision petition the learned Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue had, by his order, dated 14-7-1980, directed the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) to remove the irregularities committed in the consolidation scheme by exercise of his suo mote revisional powers which he had failed to do in the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that Appeal No, 112 of 1977 was dismissed on a wrong presumption that parties had entered into a compromise and, therefore, it was still pending disposal, before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) and had to be decided by him on merits after hearing both the parties.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) had reversed the remand order of the Collector (Consolidation) dated 13-10-1977, and restored the original consolidation scheme dated 19-10-1976 on the basis of a compromise between the parties, the petitioner was estopped to file a second appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) in respect of the same land after lapse of more than three years. With regard to the alleged failure of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) to remove suo inotu the so-called defects of the petitioner's scheme, the learned counsel submitted that the direction given by the Board of Revenue in that behalf in its order dated 14-7-1980 related to the scheme of some other right-holders and, therefore, the petitioner's scheme could not be revised suo inotu in pursuance of such direction.
' After having heard these arguments and on perusing the record I find that the remand order of the Collector (Consolidation) dated 13-10-1977 passed on the appeal of the petitioner having been set aside on 12-7-1978 by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) in Appeal No, 112/1977 the second appeal before the Collector (Consolidation) filed in respect of the same scheme and against the same party, after about three years of the prescribed period of limitation was not competent and had been rightly dismissed. Therefore, this revision petition, which assails the order dated 20-10- 1979 of the Collector (Consolidation) and the order, dated 11-3-1981 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) rejecting respectively the appeal and the revision petition of the petitioner on the ground of their being incompetent, cannot succeed and is, therefore, dismissed.
6. However, while going through the record, I fatal that in Appeal No, 112/1977 the order dated 12-7- 1978 had been obtained from the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) by misrepresenting the fact that the pasties had come to a compromise. As a matter of fact the petitioners Fazaldad ete.
In that appeal were not present before the Additional Commissioner on the date of hearing of the aforesaid appeal nor they had made or signed any statement of compromise. Even Wilayat Khan, who is said to have entered A into a compromise, was not present in the Court nor he filed any power of attorney authorising any person or counsel to enter into a compromise on his behalf. It is thus clear that the order dated 12-7-1978 had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and is, therefore, void and of no legal consequences. In these circumstances the Appeal No, 112/1977, Fazaldad etc. v. Wilayat Khan etc. Shall be deemed to be still pending disposal by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi. It, is, theretore, directed that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Rawalpindi should decide the appeal in question on merits after hearing all the parties concerned.
1.