' The above cited seven revision petitions under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance. 1960 are directed against one and the same order, dated 13-2-1979 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons ), Lahore, whereby the order of the Collector (Cons.), Sialkot dated 6-11-1978 making certain amendments in the ihatas of the parties, was upheld and the appeals of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. Briefly, the consolidation scheme of revenue estate Kot Maharaj, tehsil and district Sialkot was confirmed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 30-6-1974. The respondents Hasan Din, etc. Filed an appeal before the Collector (Cons.), Sialkot contending that their valuable land around the Aoadi Deh and at Chah Lahendewal had been unjustifiably withheld from them. The Collector
(Cons) ) partly accepted the appeal on 5-3-1978 and restored Khasra Nos. 893, 889, ,s9,)-min and 903-min to Hasan Din, etc., after withdrawing the same from the Khatas of Khera and (ihulam Qadir, etc. This order was resisted in three separate appeals, one filed by Hasan Din etc. And the other two by Khera and Ghulam Qadir, etc., before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) who by his order dated 24-5.1978, while accepting the appeal of Hasan Din etc. And rejecting the other two appeals, remanded the case to the Collector (Cons.) with the directions ; (al that the deficiency in the entitlement of Hasan Din, etc., be made good ; (b) that their land around Abadi Deli be restored to them in Iota and (c) that their block be formed at the plates where they held major portions of their land before consolidation. Khera got acquiesced, but Ghulam Qadir, etc., felt aggrieved and went, first, in revision, before the Board of Revenue and then, in writ, before the Lahore High Court, but without any success. Meanwhile the Collector (Cons.), in compliance with the remand order, dated 24-5-1978 took up the case again and after hearing all concerned restored the previous land of respondents Hasan Din, etc., to them, yid, the order dated 6-11-1978. The petitioners felt aggrieved by this order and filed seven separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore, but the same were dismissed on 13-2-1979. Hence these revision petitions.
3. Ch. Sub".Lan Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following main contentions : -
(1) That the scheme of the respondents Hasan Din, etc., having been confirmed with their own co, sent and in accordance with the terms of Resolutions Nos. 36 and 37 which was duly attested and accepted by Hasan Din himself, the same could not be called in question in a subsequent appeal or revision ;
(ii) That except for Muhammad Hussain etc. The petitioners in R.
0. R. No, 893, no other petitioners were made a party to appeal before the Collector (Cons.) and were impleaded as such only when the case had been remanded, after more than four years of the confirmation of the original scheme, dated 30-6-1974 ; therefore, it was not lawful for the Collector (Cons.) to have disturbed the wandas of the petitioners and withdrawn from them the land which they had already developed, on a time-barred claim of the respondents.
4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted :-
(a) That the valuable land of the respondents around Abadi Deli had been taken away without any genuine agreement between them and the petitioners ; and
(b) That the so-called Resolutions Nos. 36 and 37, having been induced by fraud and inisrepressentation, any claim founded upon them could be successfully resisted at any time on the discovery of fraud, and no length of time would operate a bar to relief.
5. After having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusing the impugned orders and the relevant record, I find that the parties had entered into an agreement for the mutal exchange of their lands .On the terms and conditions set out in Resolutions Nos. 36 and No 37. Nevertheless, during the framing of the wandas, although the lands of the respondents lying near the abadi dell were taken away and assigned to the petitioners, the lands promised in return to the respondents to make up the deficiency sustained by them in terms of Class 1 land, as stipulated in resolution No, 37, were fraudulently and collusively withheld from them. In this way not only the valuable lands of the respondents around abadi deli were denied to them but also their entitlement in terms of Class I land was reduced from 166 Kanals 11 Marlas to 149 Kanals 6 Marlas. When the respondents came to know of this unfair and fraudulent distribution of the lands, they preferred an appeal against Muhammad Hussain, etc., the petitioners in R.
0. R. No, 893, but. Subsequently on discovery that the other petitioners had likewise benefited in the transaction, impleaded them also as a party to the proceedings before the Collector (Cons.). There was nothing illegal about it. It is a familiar principle of law that an agreement which has been induced by fraud or misrepresentation can be repudiated by a party not in part delicto, at its option within a reasonable time after the discovery of such fraud or misrepresentation and no length of time would operate a bar to relief. Thus, to defeat the fraud, a mere lapse of time would not stop the respondents to press their case against the petitioners, who, for lack of knowledge, could not be impleaded earlier as a party, before the lower Court. Now, as the fraud vitiaes everything, the lower Courts upon being satisfied of such fraud, possessed the powers to vacate, and had rightly vacated it by restoring the previous lands of the respondents to them. At the same time the petitioners had also been suitably accommodated mostly on their own lands and as such they had no right to clamour.
6. Consequently all these revision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.