1994 PLP 1456 (SCMR)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Muhammad Yar and another, petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 10‑11‑1991 dismissing their writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Moosa son of Fazal Din was allotted agricultural land measuring 256 Kanals 8 Marlas situated in Revenue Estate Amar Singh Wala, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar. The said allottee alienated the aforenoted land in favour of Rehmatullah. The petitioners purchased the land from said Rehmatullah. Khushi Muhammad, Farooq Ahmad and Abdul Majid, informers, submitted three separate applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), alleging therein that Muhammad Moosa had obtained allotment in Revenue Estate Chak No. 114 Murad Miro Balouch, Muaza Shahar Farid, in Chak No. 16 Gujiana, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, in. Tehsil Taunsa, District Dera Ghazi Khan in District Sheikhupura. It was prayed that these allotments were in fact obtained by deceit and fraud and be cancelled. Muhammad Moosa appeared before the Court and admitted that he had secured allotment in Chak No. 114/Murad and Miro Baluch in Tehsil Chishtian, while allotments in all other revenue estates were fictitious. The learned Settlement Commissioner by means of order dated 20‑9‑1977 accepted the application and cancelled the allotments in the name of Muhammad Moosa in village Qaimpur, Amrat Singh and Nasirabad.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 10‑11‑1991 on the ground that the informers who were necessary parties, had not been impleaded and that even otherwise Muhammad Moosa had himself stated that he had secured the allotment of the disputed land through fraud and that therefore the petitioners could have no better rights than enjoyed by Muhammad Moosa himself. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the said judgment.

4. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the informers not being direct beneficiaries were not necessary parties and therefore did not deserve to be impleaded.

5. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. The informers under section 14‑A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 have a vested right to secure allotment of land resumed in consequence of their information in lieu of their claims, if any. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners therefore has no force. No ground for interference is made out.

6. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed and leave is refused. A.A./M‑1993/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Leave refused.