1982 PLP 166 (CLC)

Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Respondents Nos. 3 to

8. Date of hearing : 15th June, 1981. GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑This order shall also dispose of Intra. Court Appeals Nos. 113 and 119 of 1977 which raise identical questions.

2. The infra‑Court appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 138?‑R of 1977. The appellants who filed an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement) Act, 1958, as informers are not claimants. Their case was that as they are occupancy tenants of the land in dispute the respondents who claim the same on the basis of allotment under bogus claim could not oust them.

3. They' further stated that as ‑the claim under which the land in question was allotted in favour of the predecessor of the respondents was bogus and forged the allotment and subsequent sale in favour of the respon dents be set aside. It may be noted that the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 11th August, 1977 found on the basis of the record of the Appellate Court that the verification of the claim was correct. He further found by comparing the certified copies submitted by the appellants with the original record summoned from the office of the Additional Commissioner that there was no forgery in the allotment.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that the learned Single Judge erroneously held that as the appeals and revisions had already been filed and dismissed against the same allotment, before the Settlement authorities, including the delegates of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, no application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was maintainable. He further stated that none of appellants was a party to any of the appeals or revisions.

5. The contention of the learned counsel that none of the appellant was a party to any appeal or revision is also not valid. The question is that if an Officer of parallel jurisdiction has once considered the same allegations in other litigation then can it be said that the allotment was obtained fraudulently or against a bogus claim? Both the Settlement Commissioners found it otherwise as a matter of fact. A certified copy of an order dated 29th May, 1972 passed by Mr. Zakaullah Naik, Settlement' Commissioner (Land in Appeal No. 72 of 1972 shows that the Settlement Commissioner found not only that the allotment %vas valid but that the application under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act before him was not maintainable, Thus unless it is shown that even the previous Settlement Commissioner was defrauded by the respondents n second set of litigation would be maintainable.

6. It is to be noted that the point referred to above had been considered by this Court in the case of Mirza Khan (P L D 1973 Notes 5 at p. 14), to hold that a case finalized by Settlement Authority in appeal and revision cannot be reopened in proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. Fazal Hussain (1975 S C M R 61), maintained a judgment of the High Court holding that recourse to provisions of sections 10 and 1 I is uncalled for and misconceived when order could be challenged before higher Settlement authorities. The application of principle of res judicata by the High Court in such cases was approved. Similar view was taken in Officer on Special Duty etc. v. Bashir Ahmad etc. (1977SCMR208).

7. It may further be seen that the appellants are not claimants displace persons. They, therefore. cannot claim the allotment of the land in question even if the same is cancelled from the name. of the respondents. The respon dents on other hand would have the right to purchase this land as they have been in possession on the target date as referred to in the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act. Even otherwise they are entitled to retain the same in view of Officer on Special Duty etc. v. Bashir Ahmad etc. being bona fide purchaser for value under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and for the reason ,that it is nowhere proved that they had colluded with the claimants. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M. Y. H. Appeals dismissed.