' This revision petition under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Oridnance, 1960 was directed, against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala who vide his order dated 29-9-1991 dismissed the revision of the petitioners.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Consolidation Scheme of Village Jalalpur Jattan, Tehsil and District Gujrat was confirmed under section 10(3) of the said Ordinance by the Consolidation Officer on 17-94978. The consolidation operations could not come to the knowledge of the petitioners nor they were summond by the staff at any stage of the consolidation proceedings. As a result of this collusive action of the Consolidation Staff who were obviously in league with the rest of respondents, the petitioners have been put to irreparable loss as they will be deprived of their residential houses. On discovering this fraud, the petitioners addressed an application to the Member, Board of Revenue. On this application the Collector (Cons.), Gujart was informed vide letter No, 373, dated 7-51988 that the petitioners can seek the remedy in the Court through an appeal. In pursuance of the same, an appeal was filed with the Collector (Cons.), Gujart who dismissed the same on 15-8-1988 on the ground of being time-barred by more than 9-1/2 years. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was instituted in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Gujranwala who vide impugned order dismissed the revision of the petitioners on the same ground.
3. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners were not in the knowledge of any consolidation operations in the village therefore, the question of limitation cannot run against them. Otherwise too, the petitioners have built houses and their total holding is 3 Kanals 2 Marlas and this being an integral part of the urban area, they could not be deprived of the same during the consolidation proceedings. Furthermore, the delay, if any, was condoned on their petition which they had addressed to the Member, Board of Revenue. It was on receipt of this letter that the Collector (Cons.), Gujrat was intimated vide letter No, 337 dated 7-5-1988 that the petitioners are at liberty to seek the remedy by filing an appeal. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that this direction in the said letter amounted to condonation of delay and as such it was unwarranted on the part of the Collector (Cons.) to dismiss the appeal of the petitioners on point of limitation.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The order of the learned Collector (Cons.) and the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Cons.) have also been perused. It has rightly been observed both by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner that the delay in the instant case is to the extent of 9 years, 8 months and 13 days which is not possible to overlook. Considering the contents of the letter referred to by the counsel for the petitioners i,e, No,373 of 7-5-1988 it in no way can be interpreted as a blank cheque for condonation of any extent of delay. It has only suggested a remedy which is available to the petitioners and it does not waive off all the prerequisites or mandatory requirements which are necessary to be fulfilled for the entertainment of an appeal which inter alia include limitation, grounds of appeal, certified copies of impugned order and requisite amount of court-fee etc. As such I am inevitably led to conclude that through the aforesaid letter the Collector (Cons.) could entertain the appeal provided it fulfilled all the mandatory legal requirements. He was, therefore, fully justified in observing that period of nearly nine and half years is fatal to the present petition. As such mere direction of the Board of Revenue to a lower Court on a miscellaneous application suggesting the remedy of appeal to a petitioner does not deprive the Court of its inherent powers to overlook such important legal requirements as the question of limitation or the lack of certified copies of the impugned orders.
5. On top of it, I am forced to observe that the petitioners have to come to the Court with clean hands. Though they claim that the land in dispute was in the shape of houses, but in the aforesaid letter referred to above, the disputed place has been stated as an open plot in remarks column.
Lastly the plea of the petitioners about their having remained ignorant of the consolidation operations in their village, to say the least, is totally unbelievable. It is a matter of common experience that consolidation operations can never remain secret and specially the present petitioners who are so vigilant as to safeguard their interest in a small piece of land measuring 3 Kanals 2 Marlas only. There is thus no cogent reason to give them the benevolent bliss of ignorance. On the contrary, it must be observed that the petitioners have gone too far in their greed to take the plea of having remained ignorant to such an important proceedings like consolidation operations in their village.
6. Another important aspect which cannot be ignored is the specific date i,e, 17-9-1978 on which the consolidation scheme was confirmed under section 10(3). As such a period of nearly fourteen years has elapsed. During this long period, not only that the village has been returned to the Mahal side, but the possessions of almost of all Khatas have also been changed. There appears to be no other motive on the part of petitioners except to drag the respondents into unnecessary litigation for monetary benefits.
7. In view of the observations in the foregoing paras there is obviously no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.