' This revision petition is directed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 16-10-1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore Division whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village Mustafabad, Tehsil and District Kasur was confirmed under section 10 (3) of the Ordinance, ibid, by the Consolidation Officer on 31-12-1979. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed a time-barred appeal on 24-2-1980 before the Collector (Cons.), who vide his order dated 10-8-1980 accepted it and amended the khatas of the parties holding that the petitioners' previous holding was allocated to the respondents during the consolidation operations. The respondents assailed this order in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who vide his impugned order accepted the appeal on the ground that since the order of the Collector had been passed against a dead person, it was a nullity in the eyes of law, Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learne Additional Commissioner (Cons.) did not examine the merits of the case at a while passing the impugned order and that the appeal before the ADC/Collecto (Cons.) did not abate due to the death of Rehmat All after the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Further that even the respondents had no impleaded the legal representatives of Muhammad Suleman in their appea before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) and the same principle vi abatement of appeal was not applied to them.
Old Khasra Nos. 525, 526 and 52 (new Nos. 257 and 258) were owned and possessed by the petitioners prior t consolidation and could not have been given to the respondents in consolidatio The appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.) was time-barred by more than seven years. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside restoring the Collector's order dated 10-8- 1980.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioners had filed an appeal against a dead person which was coram non judice. The Collector's order dated 10-8-1980 was, therefore, a nullity in law. The public notice, published in the newspaper, was substituted mode of service and the respondents had not been served at all in person. The holdings of both the petitioners and respondents were adjacent and how could the petitioners claim lack of knowledge of Rehmat Ali's death who had died somewhere in 1968, i,e., prior to consolidation.
5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record and also seen the record produced by the Patwari. The fact of Rehmat Ali's death does not appear to have been reflected in the revenue record and indeed the mutation of his inheritance was attested in 1982. The respondents are not direct descendants of Rehmat Ali being collateral and are not resident of revenue estate concerned. Even their address has been mentioned as resident of Main Bazar, Qainchi Amar Sadhu, Lahore in the memo of appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.). From the same document it is evident from para 5 thereof that Rehmat Ali was not resident of Mustafabad but of Mauza Charar, Tehsil Lahore. Hence the petitioners cannot reasonably be expected to have knowledge of Rehmat Ali's death for impleading the respondents as a party in proceedings before the ADC/Collector (Cons.). On the other hand the respondents received the inheritance in 1982 i,e two years after the case had already been decided against them by the Collector (Cons). The technicalities and procedural issues seem to have prevailed over the merits in both the Courts below. Under the circumstances it appears to be a fit case for decision on merits after giving both the parties an A opportunity to agitate their respective points of view. Accordingly both the orders i,e. Order of the Additional Commissioner (Cons) dated 16-10-1988 and of Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Cons) dated 10-8-1980 are set aside and the case is remanded to the ADC/Collector (Cons.), Kasur for fresh decision after hearing both the parties.