HAFEEZULLAH ISHAQ, MEMBER.- This revision petition is directed u/s 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 8.2.1988 of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Gujranwala Division whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Consolidation Scheme of the village Mangat Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat was confirmed u/s 10(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance ibid by the Collector (Cons) on 30.6.1983. Two appeals No. ACC-86/74 of 1986 and No. ACC-86/90 of 1986 were filed by Lala etc. And Mohammad Anwar etc., in the court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons)
Lahore Division who vide his order dated 4.9.1986 and 21.8.1986 remanded the cases to the Collector
(Cons) for fresh orders after hearing the parties. In appeal Lala etc. Versus Gaman etc. The Additional Commissioner (Cons) directed the Collector (Cons) to pass fresh order after hearing all the parties concerned and with a view to restoring khasra No. 132/ and 132/13 to the respondents Lala etc. The Collector (Cons) further remanded the cases to the Consolidation Officer on 10.5.1987.
The respondents Lala etc. Moved an application before the Consolidation Officer for impleading the petitioners as a party which was allowed. Notice was issued to the petitioners but they were not served properly. The Consolidation Officer submitted a proposal on 13.8.1987 to the Collector (Consolidation) who approved /he same vide his order dated 10.10.1987. The petitioners went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) who vide his impugned it, holding that the remand orders of the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) were not challenged by any party in any superior court hence they had attained finality and the Collector (Consolidation) had duly implemented the remand orders. He restored Khasra Nos. 207/15 and 207/16, 132/12 and 132/13 on the basis of previously held by the respondents. Hence this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not made a party in appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) after confirmation of the scheme under Section 10(4) of the Ordinance ibid by the AQC/Collector (Cons). These appeals were barred by time but were remanded to the ADC/Collector (Cons) without condonation of delay. The Collector (Cons) further remanded these appeals to the Consolidation Officer who on 13.8.1987 submitted a proposal which was accepted by the Collector (Consolidation) on 10.10.1987. The second appeal by Lala respondents was not competent. The petitioners were not heard by either the Consolidation Officer or the ADC/Collector (Consolidation) and all the proceedings were taken in their absence. The Consolidation Officer passed an order on Scheme No. 200 of Anaran on 5.4.1982 and reviewed it on the same day. The Consolidation Officer was not competent to make any order in review which was plainly illegal. The petitioner's scheme was frazed according to their previous possessions but in an illegal manner their holding was broken and scattered in many pieces at far away places. Khasras Nos. 132/12 and 13 had always been possessed by the petitioners which were allocated to them in Scheme No. 693.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that Khasras No. 132/12-13 were held prior to consolidation by them. Their dera and tube well were situated in Khasra No. 133/15. The Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), remand order was never challenged the petitioners at any stage and after remand the petitioners were duly heard by the Collector (Consolidation) who restored the respondents' previously possessed land.
5. I have considered the arguments, perused the case record as well as the sketch, map prepared by the Patwari. It is admitted by the parties that the remand order dated 21.8.1986 was passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Lahore Division without hearing the petitioners. The established principle of natural justice had thus been violated and this illegality cannot be1 rectified by reasoning that the petitioners did not file an appeal against this order which had thus attained finality. As held by the Supreme Court in NLR 1986 S.C. Revenue 81, fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and benefit taken under fraud cannot be allowed to be retained. The subsequent proceedings based on a vide Order cannot similarly be sustained. On this sole consideration alone, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Consolidation) for fresh decision after hearing all the parties.