had to be forfeited to the Government. Such a proposition, if accepted, would result in an anomalous, arbitrary and hazardous consequences. On the other hand, as held by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision and in catena of decisions finality has to be given to the orders passed by the revenue authorities and if the State were to discover materials which showed that fraud had been played and documents had been created by fabricating the same and forging the signatures, then, in all promptitude and seriousness, investigation ought to be ordered, guilty have to be brought to book and proceedings have to be initiated before the Courts of law for annulling the transactions and establishing the right of the State over the same. If such proceedings are initiated, there is scope for leading evidence. The beneficiaries will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, produce evidence in support of their case and thereafter, there will be a reasoned verdict of the court after analyzing the evidence on record by framing specific issue regarding the alleged fraud committed. The affected parties will have right to assail such findings before the appellate forum and the appellate court will have ample opportunity to have a second look at the entire materials placed on record. All this procedure would be shortcircuited and negated if the revisional powers are exercised after decades to record findings regarding fraud committed, particularly when such findings are recorded in a casual manner as has been done in the instant case".
