' This is a revision petition filed under section 13 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, against the order dated 9-5-1974 of the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan, whereby the revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. I have heard the parties and examined the record.
3. The petitioner's contention is that before consolidation his entire land was at one place but he has now been allotted land at two places contrary to the principles of consolidation. The petitioner wants that the plots bearing Khasra Nos. 9 and 10/2 of Square No, 278 may be consolidated in Khasra Nos. 17/2, 18/2 and 22/1 of Square No, 240. The Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner through his impugned order dated 9-5-1974 for non-compliance of his previous order dated 18-4-1974 whereby the petitioner failed to deposit process fee.
4. The record shows that after confirmation of the consolidation scheme by the A. C.
0. On 31-1-19 3 the petitioner filed a time-barred appeal before the Collector (Cots.) who dismissed it on 12-3-1974 on the point of limitation as well as on merits. I find from the record that in the 'Register Scheme' the petitioner bad not signed or thumb marked his Khata No, 852 in token of his acceptance. The petitioner was, therefore, justified in asserting that he was not aware of the land allotted to him in consolidation with the result that he could not file the appeal before the Collector (Cons.) in time. In these circumstances 1 condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by the petitioner in the Court of the Collector ((Cons.).
5. The record shows that before consolidation the petitioner was a shareholder to the extent of 44K-2M in the joint Khewat No, 372 in Square Nos. 240 and 261. The petitioner has now been allotted 33K-16M in Square No, 240 and the remaining area of 10 kanals and 6 mar/as in Khasra Nos. 9 and 10/2 of Square No, 278 where he held no land before consolidation. It is, therefore, clear justice has not been done to the petitioner. As the case has not been decided by the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Multan on merits it is remanded to him for fresh decision after hearing the parties in the light of the above observations.