' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 2-8-1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that consolidation scheme of the village was annulled by the then Member (Cons.) on 19-11-1976 to the extent of Niaeen area. As a result of that order. The claim of the petitioners was satisfied by the Consolidation Officer on 28-4-1981 by restoring land in Square No,97/7/1(2K-16M), .15(7K-7M),4/4 (19M) and 7/2 (15M) total 11K-17M and in lieu thereof Kh. Nos. 81/1 (8K) and 2 (4K) were taken away from the Khata of the petitioners whereas the other land remained intact. Later on, by way of fraud certain changes were proposed on 2-3-1982 and about 50 kanals of land had been taken away from the .Khata of the petitioners. He has stated that the abovesaid date is also tampered with.
Thereafter on 2-12-1982 some further changes were made in the Khata of the petitioners resulting in breaking up of their compact block which was against the spirit of consolidation. On account of these changes the petitioners were given land at far-off places where they held no land previously.
In addition some land comprising the petitioners' residential houses (deras) has been allocated in the wanda of the respondents. The Additional Commissioner (Cons.) although held in his order that a perusal of both of these notes revealed that the latter note dated 2-3-1982, was clearly a bogus one in that not only the date had been tampered with but also the signatures of the Consolidation Officer did not tally with the signatures given under the other note dated 2-12-1982. Despite this the Additional Commissioner did not take any notice of this forgery and has erroneously' thrown away their appeal on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that these changes were made with the consent of the petitioners. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioners never consented to these awkward proposals. Since the subsequent changes in the register scheme are themselves void, therefore, the question of delay in filing the appeal is irrelevant. The petitioners came to know about these changes in June, 1987 and soon after they filed the appeal so the time for appeal will run from the date of knowledge.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that changes in the wanda of the petitioners were made with their consent. Muhammad Nazir, one of the petitioners has put his signatures on the proposed amendments. He has also stated that the appeal of the petitioners was badly time- barred and the Additional Commissioner has rightly dismissed it.
4. I have considered the arguments and have examined the record very minutely. I have also perused the sketch map prepared by the Patwari- (Cons.). The perusal of the record shows that the complaint of the petitioners with regard to their Niaeen land already stood removed on 28-4- 1981. Thereafter there was no occasion to touch this 'scheme. The learned Additional Commissioner although observed forgery in the record yet he had failed to take serious notice of it. By way of allegedly agreed proposal the compact block of the petitioners has been scattered in three different places. No land-owner in his senses would surrender a compact block and in return receive isolated plots unless there were some special reasons for that. No such exceptional reasons are forthcoming in this case. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the circumstances of this case, no bar of limitation will stand -in the way of dispensing justice.
The revision petition is therefore, ,accepted and resultantly setting aside all the orders of Courts below passed after 24-4-1981, the original consolidation scheme .Of 1976 is restored with the modification made on 28-4-1981.