MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. -- The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.6.1990, passed by the Member Board of Revenue, whereby he accepted the review petition tiled by respondent No. 2, set aside his earlier order dated 12.8.1986 as also the orders of Additional Commissioner Consolidation, dated 9.7.1984 and Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 7.6.1984.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Din, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners was the owner of the land measuring 49 kanals, 6 marlas, situated in village Lidharr, Tehsil and District Gujrat, in lieu of which he was allotted 94 kanals and 19 marlas of land at Khata No. 188, in Consolidation Scheme which was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer, Lahore on 31.8.1964.
Thereafter, Muhammad Din leased out 86 kanals, 19 marlas of land for ten years to respondent No. 2 and prior thereto, he also leased out 8 kanals of land comprising Khasra No. 3435 to one Muhammad Hussain son of Rehmat A.I.
3. After the demise of Muhammad Din, mutation of inheritance No. 1745, was attested in favour of the 'petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner on 2.1.1984, about the said land. Respondent No. 2 tiled an appeal against this mutation, claiming to he the owner of the entire holding of late Muhammad Din on the basis of Mutations Nos. 1162, dated 11.6.1973, 1163, dated 11.6.1973 and 1171, dated 5.9.1973 and further claimed that after these mutations, Muhammad Din was left with no land which could be inherited by the petitioners..
4. Appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 7.6.1984. Respondent preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner, Consolidation but the same was also disallowed vide order dated 9.7.1984. Respondent No. 2 filed second revision before respondent No. 1, and according to the case of the petitioner, by making an application, it was withdrawn by him vide order dated 12.9.1986, passed by the Board of Revenue. Respondent No. 2 filed a Review Petition No. 334/86 on 11.11.1986 for the review of the order, which has been accepted by the Board of Revenue through the impugned order. Furthermore, in the same order, the orders challenged in the revision petition have also been set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a written application dated 2.8.1985, duly thumb marked by respondent and signed by Mr. Lqbal Ahmad Malik, his counsel, was moved before the Board of Revenue for the withdrawal of the revision petition, on which the order dated 12.8.1985 was passed and the petition was dismissed as having been withdrawn. Thereafter, the review petition under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, was tiled by respondent No. 2, averring that the application for withdrawal of the revision has fraudulently manoeuvred by the petitioner. This application was contested by petitioner and the Member Board of Revenue vide impugned order has set aside the order dated 12.8.1965, envisages the withdrawal of the revision petition and as also decided the case on merits. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review order has been passed without holding an inquiry into the facts, whether the case was duly withdrawn by the respondent or was an act of deception and fraud played by the petitioners. The application of withdrawal was signed by Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Malik, who even acknowledged in the review petition was the counsel for respondent No. 2, therefore, even if the thumb marks on the withdrawal application are not that of the respondent No. 2, or his son, the signature of learned counsel were sufficient for enabling the withdrawal thereof. In the impugned order, Member has concluded that neither respondent No. 2 nor his counsel was present, application for withdrawal was submitted by the clerk who was encompassby respondent No. 2's son, who has no power-of-attorney, therefore, this was considered sufficient reason for the review of the order. This according to the learned counsel, is not a valid reason, particularly when the application was duly signed by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Malik. Absence of the petitioner, or his counsel in the circumstances, thus was not expedient and the review should not have been ordered.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Fraud vitiates most solemn proceedings and the same Court/Tribunal on which the fraud has been practiced in procuring the order, has inherent powers to set aside the order, but where the factum of fraud depends upon factual inquiry, it was incumbent upon the Court/Tribunal to hold necessary inquiry into the fact constituting fraud and thereafter to pass appropriate order. In the instant case, the petitioners. Have not been given an opportunity to prove that the application for withdrawal moved by respondent No. 2, contained the signature of his counsel. In the absence of such inquiry, the factual determination about fraud could not be conclusively decided. This sole reason is sufficient for setting aside of the impugned order, resultantly, the impugned order is set aside with the direction to the Member Board of Revenue to hold an inquiry into the fact if the withdrawal application allegedly attributed to respondent No. 2 and the order dated 12.8.1985, is result of fraud and misrepresentation practices by the petitioner, if he comes to the conclusion in the affirmative that fraud has been committed by the petitioners, thereafter by setting aside the order dated 12.8.1985, should proceed to decide the case on merits.
7. In the light of above, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside with the direction to the Member Board of Revenue as stated above. 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.