' I have heard the parties and examined the record.
2. This is a reference from the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore No, ACC 73/908 dated 23-6-1973 in Appeal No, ACC-71/735 of 1971 titled Muhammad Din and Ismail v. Muhammad Malik etc. (18 is all) of village Kotli Khawaja, Tchsil Pasroor, District Sialkot. The appeal was filed before the Addl.
Commissioner (Cons.) Lahore, against the Collector (Cons.)'s order dated 2-11-1968 whereby the appeal of Ismail and Muhammad Din was dismissed. The Addl. Commissioner (Cone.) through his order dated 6-2-1973 disposed of the second appeal of Muhammad Din on the basis of a compromise with Ibrahim son of Qadir Dad respondent No, 18 of Scheme No, 26 whereby Khasra Nos. 5C0/501 (8-K), 513 (8.K) and 514 (3-K) were given to Muhammad Din and Ismail of Scheme No, 61 (the appellants before the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) from the khata of Ibrahim respondent and Khasra Nos. 285/286 (8-K), 284(8-K) and 250(3-K) were given to Ibrahim from the khata of Muhammad Din and Ismail. Thereafter Ibraim son of Qadar Dad respondent filed an application before the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore, on 17-2-1973 to the effect that Addl. Commissioner (Cons.)'s order dated 6-2-1973 was passed in his absence and that he did not make any statement in favour of petitioners Muhammad Din and Ismail. An enquiry in this behalf was held by the Addl.
Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore. He forwarded the statement dated 6-2-1973 of Ibrahim son of Qadar Dad thumb-marked by him to the Police Finger-Print Bureau, Lahore. The report dated 21-3- 1973 of Muhammad Yaqoob, D. S. P. Of the Bureau reveals that the thumb-impression on the statement alleged to have been given by Ibrahim son of Qadar Dad on 6-2-1973 is not his.
Apparently some body played a fraud on the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.). He has accordingly sent the case to the Board of Revenue to undo the injustice done to Ibrahim since he is not empowered under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 to review his own order. My learned predecessor Mr. Masroor Hassan Khan took up the matter on suo motu side. The case was therefore registered as a Suo Motu Revision No, 1302/1972-73.
3. According to the learned counsel for Muhammad Din and Ismail respondents the proceedings taken in the case by the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) were ex parte as Muhammad Din and Ismail were not present. Leaving aside the question of fraud I have examined the case on merits to see whether Muhammad Din and Ismail were entitled to receive the disputed Khasra Nos. 500/501, 513 and 514 and whether Ibrahim son of Qadir Dad respondent No, 18 has suffered any loss under the order dated 6-2-1973 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.) in Appeal No, ACC-73/735 of 1971 filed by Muhammad Din and /small, Ibrahim son of Qadar Dad has died. His son Atte Ullah is present in person.
4. The record shows that the disputed area which Muhammad Di and Ismail received in exchange did not belong to them before consolidation. Nor was it owned or possessed by Muhammad Ibrahim. However Khasra Nos. 500/501, 513 and 514 were given to Ibrahim by the A. C. O. While confirming the consolidation scheme on 31-1-1967 in order to accommodate him near the village abadi. I also find, from the entitlement statement o Muhammad Ibrahim that he was given less area in Class I. It was, therefore, not fair to deprive him of the disputed Khasra Nos. Which were near the village abadi. Muhammad Din and Ismail had, on the other hand, received sufficient area near the village abadi. They were given 31-K19M near the abadi as against 23K-11M before consolidation.
They also got Class I land according to their entitlement. In these circumstances there was no justification to do any further favour to them by allotting them disputed Khasra Nos. 500/501, 513 and 514 (total area 19 kanals) at the cost of Ibrahim. The record also shows that Ibrahim was not a party before the Collector (Cons.). He was, for the first time, impleaded respondent before the Addl.
Commissioner (Cons.).
' In view of the above I set aside the order dated 6-2-1973 of the Addl. Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore passed in appeal ACC-71/735 of 1971. In consequence, ACO's order of confirmation dated 31- 1-1967 will stand restored.