P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

KAYANI, C. J.‑Abdul Manan appellant put in a claim for 519 kanals, 5 marlas of land in Chak No. 71/5‑L of Montgomery Tehsil and a proposal for the allotment of 237 kanals, 8 marlas, which was equal to his claim in terms of produce‑index units, was made in his favour on the 1st of December 1951. Before, however, this proposal could materialise, it was discovered that a forgery had been committed in the fard‑e‑haqiyyat so as to alter 519 kanals, 5 marlas to 1519 kanals, 5 marlas, whereupon the proposal was cancelled on the 20th of May 1953. The land in question was thereafter allotted to the first eight respondents. An appeal and a revision to the Rehabilitation authorities having failed, Abdul Marian filed a writ petition in this Court. This was dismissed on the ground that the Rehabilitation authorities had acted within their jurisdiction. Abdul Manan has, therefore, brought an appeal in Letters Patent.

2. The Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the appellant had committed a forgery in the fard‑e‑haqiyyat and that, consequently, he was not entitled to any allotment. A Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, has held, however, in Abdul Haq etc. v. Rehabilitation Authorities (W. P. No. 399 of 1956) that in cases of forgery where the exact area to which a person is entitled is ascertainable, such area should be allotted to him and that in respect of the forgery it is open to the Rehabilitation authorities to start criminal proceedings. This view was followed by a Single Judge in Allah Dia v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) West Pakistan (P L D 1959 Lah. 130) and we respectfully endorse it on the present occasion.

3. These decisions rest on an interpretation of para. 4 (c) of the Rehabilitation Re‑settlement Scheme Punjab, Part I, and Instruction 60 (6) contained in Part II of the Scheme. These instructions are issued under para. 23 of Part I and are required to be consistent with that Part the object of the instructions being to secure "the proper implementation of the Scheme". Now, under para. 4 (c) of Part I "If an allottee is, at any subsequent time, found to have been allotted land in excess of what may actually be due to him, the allotment of the excess area shall be cancelled", and there is nothing to show that this provision will not apply to cases of forgery. Instruction 60 (6) deals specifically with forgeries and is to the following effect: ‑ "In cases where forgeries in revenue records of fard‑e -haqiyyat are detected, the allotments of the persons concerned should be cancelled forthwith. Further allotments in such cases should not be made until they have been finally decided and previous orders of the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) expressly obtained". This was Interpreted in the previous Division Bench case as being intended to cover only those cases in which, after a forgery had been detected in the revenue records, it was not possible for the Rehabilitation Department to ascertain, without further inquiry, the exact area to which a person was entitled. Further allotments in such cases are not to be made until a decision has been taken as to whether a forgery has been committed and the extent thereof has been ascertained. The order of the Rehabilita tion Commissioner has to be "expressly obtained" in order that a forgery may not be overlooked. If, however, this instruction was intended to arm the Rehabilitation Commissioner with a power to penalise a case of forgery so as to deprive a person of his legitimate title, then it is in excess of the power granted by para. 23 of Part I of the Scheme.

4. We, therefore, accept the contention of the appellant's counsel that the decision is in excess of the jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation authorities. The question however, is whether he is entitled to the land which has since been allotted to the respondents. In the orders of the Rehabilitation authorities, these eight respon dents have been shown to be temporary allottees in Chak No. 71/5‑L on the ground that they were temporary allottees in Chak No. 103/7‑L of the same district before they transferred their claim to the present Chak. There is a report, however, at page 43 of the paper‑book by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Montgomery, stating that four of the respondents, namely, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Ibrahim, Ismail and Wali Muhammad, had not been temporary allottees in Chak No. 103/7‑R. If this is correct, the appellant's claim would be preferable to these respondents, for the appellant is a refugee allowance‑holder, and under para. 8 of the Scheme, Part 11, he should be preferred to non‑allottees, though he will not be considered an allottee.

5. We, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Rehabilitation authorities rejecting the appellant's claim. The question whether four of the respondents were not temporary allottees in Chak No. 103/7‑R should be examined afresh in view of the report of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, and the claim of the appellant decided under para. 8 and any other provision of the Scheme that might be applicable. In view of the fact that the allotment was cancelled on the ground of forgery, there will be no order as to costs. A. H. Order accordingly.