' This is a revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 against the order dated 10-1-1987 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. I have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Khasra Nos.219/8,13 and 14 measuring 24 kanals originally belonged to Sherif and Shera etc. In the Consolidation Scheme dated 30-6-1983 these numbers were adjusted in the wanda of the petitioner and possession of that land was also delivered to the petitioner. That area continues to be in his cultivating possession till today. However, the respondents without any locus standi filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) claiming therein the above land also. The learned Additional ,Commissioner (Cons.) vide his order dated 24-10-1984 rejected the claim of the respondents in respect of the abovesaid area i.e, Khasra Nos.219/8, 13 and 14 but remanded the case in respect of other land of the respondents in Square Nos.206 and 251. That order was challenged by the respondents in the Board of Revenue (R.O.R. No,225 of 1985). In the appeal decided by the Additional Commissioner on 24-10-1984 although the claim of the respondents in respect of Khasra Nos.219/8, 13 and 14 was rejected and this land is not subject-matter of R.O.R.
No,225 of 1985, yet the petitioner was shocked to learn that by way of forgery in the Register Scheme the said land was shown to have been given to the respondents by mutual consent on 28- 11-1981. The learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) refusing to go into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation. He has prayed that correction of Register Scheme may be ordered by deleting the portion which has been added subsequently by committing forgery.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that during, consolidation operations they were adjusted in Square No,249. That land was taken back by the petitioner through a pre-emption suit.
Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to retain land in Square No, 219.
4. The parties have been heard at length. The record has also been examined. Mr. Salehoon the petitioner was allocated with his consent at Khata No,591 of Register Scheme Volume 6 land bearing Khasra No, 189/17 to 24, 219/1, 2/1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13 and 14 measuring 121 kanals 8 marlas.
Thereafter as a result of the order of Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue Khasra No,189/20, 21, 219/1-min measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas were excluded from the Khata No,591 and instead Khasra Nos.219/17/3, 18, 23, 22-min measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas were included, vide C.O's order dated 28-4-1981. On 28-11-1981 the following note was recorded on the said Khata at page 76 of the above said Register: {{URDU TEXT}} ' Thereafter the following order dated 30-6-1983 was passed by the Collector (Cons.) :- {{URDU TEXT}} Self- Collector (Cons.)
5. Another significant development took place in this case. In different ink and with different pen the following note also appeared immediately below the note dated 28-11-1981 of the Consolidation Officer. This note is also shown to be signed by the same Consolidation Officer. This is also dated 28-11-1981. This note, which has been marked Ex. P.C./1/A at Register Scheme Ex.C/11 is reproduced below: - {{URDU TEXT}} ' Against Wanda No,627 of Muhammad Hussain respondent etc. Contained in Scheme Register Volume 7, Ex.C.I the following note also appears at Ex.C.I/A which is also shown to have been written, signed and ' The endorsements/orders at Ex.C.I/A and Ex.C.II/A are meant to exclude Khasra Nos. 219/8, 13 and 14 from Khata No,.591 of Salehoon petitioner and include the same in Khata No,627 of Muhammad Hussain etc. Respondents. It was, therefore, necessary to find out whether the endorsement marked Ex.C.I/A and Ex.C,II/A at Volumes No,6 and 7 of the Scheme Register of village Mangat were genuine or not. For that purpose I called Shahzada Muhamamd Zia, ex-Consolidation Officer, Mandi Bahaud-Din, presently posted as EAC Rawalpindi and recorded his statement. He has very clearly stated that both the entries Ex.C./I/A and C.II/A were neither written by him nor bear his signatures and that both these entries and his signatures thereon are forged ones. A comparison of the signatures stated to be forged with his other signatures in abundance in the said registers lends full support to his version. The counsel for the respondents was given full opportunity to cross- examine him. His only question was as to who retained the custody of these registers to which Shahzada Muhammad Zia, former Consolidation Officer replied that these registers remained in the custody of the Patwari. The counsel for the respondents did not challenge the statement made by Shahzada Muhammad, EAC. For obvious reasons, I too have no ground to differ with Shahzada Muhammad Zia's version given in his statement made on oath before me. It has thus been established that entries Ex.C.I/A of Scheme Register Volume 7 Ex.C./I and at Ex.C.II/A of A Scheme Register Volume 6 Ex.C.II are forged entries made with the obvious purpose of depriving "Salehoon the petitioner of land bearing Khasra Nos.219/8, 13 and 14 and adding the same in the Khata of the respondents. This is .a clear case of forgery and fraud.
6. The learned Additional Commissioner on presentation of this appeal/application alleging forgery in record in unambiguous terms dismissed this application/appeal on the point of limitation. The entries/orders at Ex.PC.I/A and Ex.PC. II/A being forged ones were void and of no legal effect. Bar of limitation does not run against these forged entries/orders. When forgery and fraud in Revenue Record is alleged before a Revenue Court it must look into the matter in order to give protection to the genuine and correct entries of the Revenue Record in order to safeguard its sanctity. Had the Additional Commissioner held a preliminary hearing and cared to go through the record I am certain he would not have dismissed the matter on technical grounds. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case, the Additional Commissioner could have even treated it as a revision petition and gone ahead with the disposal of this petition on merits.
7. The two Scheme Registers Ex.C.I and Ex.C.II shall remain in the custody of the Reader of this Court who will return or pass these on to the concerned authorities only with my permission. Since it is a case of forgery and fraud, which could not have been committed without the connivance of some public servants, a copy of this' order shall be sent to the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore for registration of a case and thorough investigation in accordance with law so that the perpetrators of this crime are identified and prosecutell.
8. The net result of the above, discussion is that the entries Ex.C.I/A and Ex.C.II/A having 'been found to be forged ones are declared void and of no legal-, effect and these entries shall not have the cover of the Collector's order dated 30-6-1983 at Khates No,59.1 and 627. To further clarify Khasra Nos.219/8, 13 and 14 shall be considered duly allocated in the Khata of Salehoon petitioner.
9.. It has also been brought to my notice that M/s. Khizar Hayat s/o Khanu and Khanu s/o Khushi Muhammad filed a suit for pre-emption against Salehoon the petitioner, which was decreed in favour of the pre-emptors. In the, execution of the decree the original area of Halehoon in Squake No,249(Killa Nos.12/2, 11/2 and 20/1) was taken away by the pre-emptors. As Salehoon has been adjusted in Square No,219 (Killa Nos.S, 13 and 14) the extent of his total entitlement should be 're- examined with a view to ensure that he does not retain larid in excess of his entitlement. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.