1987 PLP 880 (SCMR)

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate assisted by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. M. Farooq, Senior Advocate with Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Name for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1986. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 13‑1‑1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 11‑R of 1986 by which it was dismissed in limine.

2. The petitioners herein are the representatives‑in‑interest of Ditt Khan whose allotment was cancelled as bogus and fraudulent by order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 1st of December, 1976. However, in the writ petition against that order a compromise was entered into between the parties as under:‑ "Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter may be referred to the Notified Officer, A.D.C. (G) Gujranwala to ascertain as to whether Lal Din and Shah Bibi (respondents No. 2 and 3) had pending claim for adjustment of the area in dispute. If that is so the order of restoration of their allotment shall stand intact. If they have no pending units and have got their claim satisfied elsewhere, then the land in dispute being available and in possession of the petitioners, may be offered to them for sale in accordance with law." On remand, the Notified Officer by order dated 2nd of December, 1985, held that Shah Bibi had a verified claim form No. 9328 for 3446 units out of which 800 units were adjusted leaving a balance of 2646 units which had still to be adjusted against allotment of land, and that further on the evidence led, this fact was not rebutted. In para. 3 of the order, it was also stated that it was established that the claims of Lai Khan and Mst. Shah Bibi remained pending for settlement, and, accordingly, their pending produce ‑index‑units were ordered to be adjusted against the available 182 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land.

3. The petitioners aggrieved by that order, yet challenged this finding and contended before the High Court that the earlier allotment of Lal Din was the result of interpolation and that Mst. Shah Bibi was not a direct claimant, but an heir of Mst. Sakina Bibi whose claim had been satisfied elsewhere. The High Court noted that none of these contentions was urged before the Notified Officer, and that further such probe was beyond the scope of the consent order. And as the Notified Officer had found as a fact that Lal Din and Mst. Shah Bibi had pending claims which required satisfaction, the Notified Officer rightly ordered restoration of the land. The petitioners had, therefore, no locus standi to seek a scrutiny of their claims and as for their own status, their title was extinguished by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 22nd of December, 1976.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners again attempted to agitate the question before us that the Notified Officer did not advert to the evidence led to establish that Mst. Shah Bibi had no independent claim and that equally Lal Din also had no claim for adjustment. This contention is without any substance as the scope of the inquiry was limited to the extent to which the parties had agreed, and as held by the High Court, there was no scope for any scrutiny of their verified claims by` the Notified Officer. Even at this stage, the counsel for the petitioners was not able to explain as to how the claim form of Mst. Shah Bibi had a different number than that of Mst. Sakina Bibi, if that was not an independent claim. There is yet another hurdle which seriously impairs the rights of the petitioners to claim the sale of land. The Settlement Department was not a party to the agreement, and, therefore, it was under no legal obligation to allow the petitioners to take advantage of their own fraud. The High Court could not also in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction grant his relief as that would have amounted to the perpetuation of fraud. The petition accordingly, is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I/G‑12/S Petition dismissed.