2020 PLP 52 (YLRN)

CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.

Through this single judgment, I intend to decide titled Writ Petition (W.P.No.96- R/ 2010) along with Writ Petition No.76-R/ 2010, Writ Petition No.136-R/2010 and Writ Petition No.172-R/2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein, which are arisen from one consolidated order dated 18.01.2010 whereby the allotment of M. Zaheer Siddique and Mst.Akhtar un Nisa was declared as bogus. W.P.No.96-R/2010

2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition are that one Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqui, being a displaced person, was allegedly got allotted evacuee land measuring 91 Kanal 16 Marla comprising Khasra Nos. 1607, 1618, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1629, 1630, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1740 in Moza Amar Sadhu, Lahore vide Khata RL.II No.530 dated 05.05.1971 as Tayyandar. The said alleged allotment was entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-1973. He executed a general power of attorney in favour of Sh. Muhammad Farooq, who gifted the said disputed property to his brother/petitioner through gift mutation No.39419 dated 06.01.2003 which was also entered in the revenue record. One Ch. Muhammad Hafeez, Advocate filed application regarding the fake and fraudulent allotment in favour of said Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqui upon which, the inquiry was initiated against the alleged allotment of disputed land to probe the element of fraud. After the inquiry, the Secretary (S&R) Board of Revenue, Punjab directed the District Collector to review the gift mutation No.39419 dated 06.01.2003. The petitioner filed an application to the Chief Minister Punjab who ordered for holding of an inquiry into the matter and the Inquiry Officer recommended for restoration of the aforesaid mutation. The Senior Member, Board of Revenue vide order/letter dated 26.10.2005 constituted a committee for scrutinizing the relevant record. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.18199/2005 challenging the above letter dated 23.07.2005 as well as order dated 26.10.2005, and this Court disposed of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision. In the post remand proceedings, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 18.01.2010, declared the allotment of Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqi as well as gift mutation No.39419 dated 06.01.2003, in favour of present petitioner, as illegal, hence this petition. W.P.No.76-R/2010 and W.P. No.136-R/2010

3. Brief facts of the Writ Petition No.76-R/2010 are that Syeda Akhtar-un-Nisa, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was alleged allottee of land measuring 176 Kanal in Moza Amar Sadhu, Lahore. The general attorney of the petitioners visited the office of the Halqa Patwari in August, 1984 for obtaining the copies of latest Jamabandi of the said land when it revealed that Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Hussain, respondents Nos.3 and 4, had got allotted land measuring 254 Kanal 08 Marla on 10.03.1971 including the Khata of the petitioners in their favour with collusiveness of Settlement staff by inserting a page in RL.II of village Amar Sadhu and on the basis of forgery, they obtained a Robkar for incorporation of said khasra numbers in their favour. Further contended that respondents Nos.3 and 4 sold the land to respondent No.5/ Defence Housing Authority who forcibly got possession of the land from the petitioners. The petitioners filed W.P.No.336-R/1984 before this Court.

4. Syed Moiz Ahmad etc. the petitioners in Writ Petition No.136-R/ 2010 claiming themselves to be the progeny of Hafeez Ahmad, predeceased son of Aziz Ahmad and Mst. Akhtar-un-Nisa have contended that their grandmother Mst. Akhtar un Nisar along with respondents Nod.1 to 6 (of said petition), by excluding the names of the petitioners, filed evacuee claim and got allotted land measuring 176 Kanal in village Amar Sadhu, Lahore against the evacuee claim of their grand-father and petitioners being offspring of predeceased son of Aziz Ahmad are also entitled to the allotment along with other co-sharers. In earlier W.P.No.336 R/1984 filed by Mst. Akhtar-un-Nisa etc. the petitioners filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C for their impleading as party which was accepted and they were made party in the said petition. This Court disposed of Writ Petition No.336-R/1984 vide order dated 12.02.2002 and remanded the matter to the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Notified Officer who vide impugned order dated 18.01.2010 declaring the allotment in favour of the petitioners (Mst. Akhtar-un-Nisa etc) as well as in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4 as bogus. W.P.No.172-R/2010

5. Through this writ petition, the petitioner/Defence Housing Authority, claiming to be the bona fide purchaser from respondents Nos.2 to 6, has challenged the order dated 18.01.2010, passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Notified Officer, Punjab whereby the allotment of the respondents Nos.2 to 6/vendors was declared bogus.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, against the law and facts of the case; that the matter is a past and closed transaction which cannot be reopened; that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after the repeal of evacuee laws; that the impugned order is non-speaking in nature and passed without application of judicious mind to the facts and law; that no fraud or forgery was committed by the petitioners, as such, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a case cited as Javed Akhtar Khan v. DCO/District Collector, Sheikhupura (PLJ 2019 Lahore 647) and submitted that once the allotment has been reflected in the record of rights (Jamabandi) that entry for all intents and purposes is conclusive in nature and settlement as well as revenue authorities are devoid of jurisdiction to investigate the veracity of the said entry.

7. Learned Law Officers appearing on behalf of Settlement Department submit that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to probe into the matter where any allotment has been obtained through practicing fraud and after perusing the record, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order which does not require any interference.

8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. As per record (in W.P.No.96-R/ 2010) one Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqui got allotted disputed land measuring 91 Kanal 16 Marla comprising Khasra Nos.1607, 1618, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1629, 1630, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1740 in Moza Amar Sadhu, Lahore vide Khata RL.II No.530 dated 05.05.1971 as Tayyandar and the said alleged allotment was entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-1973. Mst.Akhtar un Nisa etc. the petitioners (in W.Ps.Nos.76-R and 136-R of 2010) claim that disputed land measuring 176 Kanal bearing Khasra Nos. Nos.1625 (14-7), 1624 (10-6), 1619 (8-0), 1616 (14-7), 1615 (10-14), 1614 (5-10), 1646 (3-9), 1645 (15-3), 1644 (5-16), 1628 (3-2), 1627 (4-9), 1626 (6- 17), 1770 (4-01), 1768 (5-4), 1767 (3-2), 1766 (3-2), 1765 (7-8), 1778 (3-4), 1777 (4-0), 1776 (3-9), 1773 (3-11), 1772 (2-10), 1914 (2-6), 1913 (3-1), 1912 (1-9), 1911 (8-19), 1910 (6-12), 1930 (3-7), 1929 (4-9), 1928 (3-4), 1927 (5-4), 1926 (5-10) and 1931 (3-19) was allotted to them on 15.03.1972 against RL.II Khata No.579 in village Amar Sadhu Tehsil and District Lahore against the verified claim of her husband, Syed Aziz Ahmad a displaced person from India.

10. The main controversy in this case which requires determination is whether above said land was got allotted as per law and without any element of fraud. Admittedly the land in question was an evacuee land which conclusively falls in the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities. Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 confers jurisdiction upon the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to declare any evacuee land as a 'building site'. The above provision of law is reproduced as under: "

13. Disposal of building sites. Any evacuee land declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be a building site in pursuance of sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of Section 2 shall be disposal of in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and.- (a) In case the land is situated within the limits of a Municipal Corporation, a Municipal Committee, a Sanitary Committee or a Cantonment, as such limits exist on the commencement of this Act, the sale proceeds thereof shall be credited to the compensation pool constituted under Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958); and (b) In other cases, the sale proceeds shall be credited to one or more of the compensation pools constituted under Section 5." By exercising the power under the aforementioned provision of law the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore issued a Notification No. 236-66/948-R(L) date 24.02.1966 declaring the certain Khasra Numbers of urban agricultural land in estates of Shahdara, Kot Lakhpat, Dhana Singhwala, and Mouza Amar Sadhu, Lahore as building sites. The scanned copy of the aforesaid notification is reproduced as under: APPENDIX XI OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND RE-HABILITATION COMMIS-SIONER, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE The 24th February, 1966 No. 236-66/948-R(L).

In exercised of the powers conferred upon me under clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, I, Dr. S.M. Ikram, S.I., C.S.P., Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan do hereby declare the Khasra Nos. (list as under) of urban agricultural land mentioned in the estates situated in the urban area of Lahore as building sites for disposal under section 13 of the said Act. S.M. IKRAM, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan NON RATION VILLAGE

1. Shahdara } (PARTIALLY).

2. Kot Lakhpat. }

3. Dhana Singhwala } (IN ENTIRETY)

4. Amar Sidhu } Statement showing the available area in non-rationed village of Shahdara, Kot Lakhpat, Dhana Singhwala, and Amer Sidhu. Serial No. Name of Village Khasra No. Area K.M. Sq. ft.

1. Shahdara . 10 2-16-0 19 4-8-0 29 1-5-0 30 6-12-0 31 8-0-0 32 8-0-0 33 9-0-0 34 8-0-0 35 8-0-0 36 8-0-0 37 8-0-0 38 5-12-0 39 7-12-0 40 7-12-0 41 8-0-0 48/1 6-0-0 40 0-19-0 Khasra No. Area Kind of land K.M. 537 2.7 Nehri Jhalri 538 8.7 " 539 9.14 " 540 2.15 " 541 8.4 " 542 3.11 Nehri 545 9.14 " 546-min 8.12 " 549 11.7 " 550-min 4.18 " 551-min 3.9 " 560-min 2.6 " 563 13.6 " 564 2.14 " 565 5.5 " 566 8.16 " 567 5.5 Banjar Qadim 568 10.8 " 569 3.6 Nehri 570 7.16 " 571 7.2 Nehri Jhalari 576-min 2.5 Ghair Mumkin Kulri 578-min 0.18 Nehri Jhilri 1864.0

4. VILLAGE AMAR SIDHO 19 1.14 Nehri 27 0.8 Banjar Qadim 2037/37 2.0 Houses 49 1.7 Tibba 50 2.7 " 59 10.12 " 60 5.0 " 61 17.9 " 62 9.16 Banjar Qadim 93 3.6 Nehri 96 3.1 " 99 0.2 " 101 4.10 Banjar Qadim 120 3.19 Tiba 122 0.9 Banjar Qadim 131 5.18 Nehri 134 6.0 " 135 0.11 " 142 5.10 " 145 3.0 " 146 1.19 " 162 1.11 Khatan 163 2.9 " 166 7.0 Banjar Qadim 167 13.18 Nehri 168 9.16 " 169 6.9 " 177 4.15 " 179 9.17 " 180 4.0 " 181 5.16 " 183 12.1 " 184 12.1 " 185 13.6 " 186 9.15 " 187 0.15 " 189 1.5 " 193 0.12 " 196 1.4 Banjar Qadim 197 0.8 " 198 11.11 " 199 11.11 " 200 1.17 " 201 3.2 " 202 8.12 Kallar 203 14.15 Banjar Qadim 204 4.2 " 205 4.16 " 206 4.13 " 207 6.1 " 208 1.6 " 209 63.14 Kallar 210 4.13 Nehri 219 13.12 " 220 14.6 " 221 4.19 " 222 6.12 " 223 7.4 " 224 10.4 " 225 10.4 " 226 16.7 " 227 6.1 " 228 5.13 " 229 4.13 " 230 3.12 " 242 3.7 " 243 33.14 " 244 7.12 " 245 12.0 " 246 12.16 " 247 14.6 " 248 20.7 Kallar 249 3.1 Nehri 250 5.11 " 251 8.13 " 252 8.13 " 253 7.1 " 254 7.8 " 255 11.14 " 256 10.6 Banjar Qadim 257 1.16 " 258 0.7 " 259 5.17 " 260 5.5 " 261 5.7 " 262 16.9 Nehri 263 1.3 " 264 1.3 " 265 5.17 " 266 1.17 Nehri 267 1.17 " 268 1.2 " 269 0.18 " 270 15.1 " 271 13.15 " 272 4.9 Banjar Qadim 273 6.7 " 274 5.13 " 275 0.4 Banjar Jadid 276 0.6 " 277 1.3 " 278 1.7 " 279 0.7 " 280 1.3 Nehri 281 0.12 " 282 0.16 " 283 1.7 Banjar Qadim 284 1.12 Nehri 285 2.17 Banjar Jadid 286 0.10 Banjar Qadim 287 0.10 Nehri 288 7.19 " 289 11.6 " 290 2.1 " 292 1.1 " 293 2.15 " 294 5.3 " 295 4.13 " 296 4.7 " 297 18.0 " 298 5.8 " 299 0.10 " 300 13.3 " 301 0.12 " 302 6.7 " 303 3.9 " 304 0.18 " 305 2.15 " 306 1.6 " 307 0.16 " 308 1.8 Banjar Qadim 309 1.11 Nehri 310 0.9 " 311 3.18 " 312 0.18 Banjar Qadim 313 5.0 " 314 0.11 " 315 1.16 " 316 6.10 " 318 27.0 " 319 4.13 Nehri 320 5.0 " 321 104 Banjar 322 24.10 " 323 1.11 Nehri 324 0.19 " 325 3.19 " 326 2.17 " 327 2.12 " 328 3.8 " 329 1.18 Banjar Qadim 339 7.9 " 340 8.11 " 341 7.0 " 342 7.9 " 343 8.8 " 344 6.4 " 345 8.12 " 346 14.0 " 350 30.13 " 361 1.16 Nehri 365 5.4 Banjar Qadim 381 6.13 Nehri 445 3.19 (Qabaristan 2.19 Banjar Jadid 1.0) 446 11.3 Qabaristan 496 0.10 Chahi 497 0.18 Banjar Qadim 2182/ 650 0.3 House 724 1.5 Ahata Chah 739 1.9 Chahi 751 0.12 Nehri 753 3.0 Chahi Nehri 764 2.1 Nehri 765 3.18 " 766 0.10 " 770 3.6 " 771 1.8 " 772 3.2 " 773 8.14 " 774 4.19 " 775 3.18 Nehri 779 1.18 " 781 8.12 " 782-min 7 8.4 " 783 4.11 " 786 8.12 " 791 1.12 " 792 8.1 " 796 6.19 " 799 3.12 " 800 3.18 " 801 9.6 " 811 9.4 " 830 4.8 " 831 4.5 " 832 4.8 " 833 7.4 " 835 5.6 " 836 5.9 " 817 3.18 " 818 4.1 " 846 7.13 " 847 7.7 " 849-min 2.7 Ahata Chah 853 2.4 Nehri 884 5.0 " 888 3.9 " 889 22.15 Kallar 890 2.19 Nehri 891 6.4 G.M. Kallar 892 9.12 " 893 3.14 " 894 4.15 Nehri 895 4.2 " 896 2.10 " 903-min 3.0 " 909 0.5 " 915 0.10 " 917 0.10 " 922 4.13 " 928 0.14 " 933 2.10 " 938 4.14 " 949 2.18 " 950 2.14 " 968 1.5 Banjar Qadim 974 7.6 Nehri 977 3.0 Banjar Qadim 981 0.10 G.M. Khatan 990 12.2 Nehri 999-min 6.0 Banjar Qadim 1001 1.12 Nehri 1002 2.10 " 1005-min 1.7 G.M. Tooba 1006 0.9 Barani 1007 4.9 G.M. Tooba 1008 13.12 " 1009 9.6 " 1017 1.0 Nehri 1020 1.9 Nehri 0.15 G.M. Khal 0.14 1023 0.19 Nehri 1037 16.14 " 1035 6.0 " 1042 7.4 " 1046 0.14 " 1047 2.4 " 1055 4.19 G. M. Aar 1056 1.8 G.M. Ahata Chah 1057 2.15 " 1058 1.10 " 1059 1.18 " 1060 7.10 " 1061 10.14 " 1069 6.0 Nehri 1070 15.18 " 1073 4.13 " 1084 0.18 " 1085 14.3 " 1087 8.4 " 1089 0.16 " 1090 6.1 " 1109 6.10 " 1111 0.12 " 1164 3.5 Ahata Chah 1172 0.12 Nehri 1173 6.0 " 1174 0.6 " 1175 0.3 " 1176 0.13 " 1177 0.15 " 1178 2.4 " 1179 1.19 " 1184 4.15 " 1185 1.14 Nehri 1187 10.18 " 1188 15.15 " 1189 7.2 " 1190 9.8 " 1191 19.17 " 1192 15.10 " 1193 3.0 Khatan 1194 8.4 Nehri 1195 11.15 " 1196 15.14 " 1197 17.18 " 1198 11.11 " 1223 17.5 " 1225 2.10 " 1253 10.18 " 1254 1.17 " 1255 8.14 " 1256 9.12 " 1257 10.3 " 1258 10.10 " 1259 14.3 " 1260 16.8 " 1273 1.10 " 1274 0.10 " 1296 7.4 " 1297 10.15 " 1298 4.0 " 1299 22.0 " 1300 8.16 " 1304 22.17 " 1306 1.6 " 1309 21.9 " 1313 6.8 " 1314 9.1 " 1315 6.5 " 1316 12.10 " 1317 16.9 " 1318 2.18 " 1320 0.17 " 1321 4.1 " 1322 21.9 Nehri 14.9 Havaili 7.0 1323 3.1 Nehri 1324 13.8 " 1329/1 0.15 Abadi 1330 2.4 Nehri 1351 5.2 " 1354 9.5 " 1356 0.11 " 1357 17.7 " 1358 13.13 " 1359 0.19 Kallar 1360 0.4 Barani 1361 21.0 " 1365 1.1 " 1366 5.19 " 1367 3.17 " 1373 1.0 " 1380 9.8 " 1382 6.8 " 1384 1.17 " 1385 8.10 Nehri 1386 5.18 " 1387 0.19 " 1388 6.8 " 1389 11.16 " 1390 5.14 " 1391 10.7 " 1392 10.9 " 1393 6.6 " 1394 9.9 " 1395 7.13 " 1396 8.12 " 1397 11.8 " 1398 13.18 " 1399 2.3 Barani 1400 4.1 " 1401 3.14 " 1402 1.3 " 1403 1.13 " 1404 2.7 " 1405 5.17 " 1406 3.6 " 1407 2.2 Nehri 1408 3.8 " 1409 3.14 " 1410 8.12 Kallar 1411 8.10 " 1412 0.16 G.M. Thoor 1414 2.16 " 1415 2.16 Banjar Qadim 1416 5.18 G.M. Thoor 1417 7.18 Kallar 1418 4.14 Barani 1419 4.14 " 1420 1.3 " 1421 1.4 " 1422 3.15 " 1423 6.16 " 1424 7.8 " 1425 11.4 " 1426 5.17 " 1426/1 4.8 " 1427 14.0 " 1428 8.19 " 1429 0.16 " 1430 4.7 " 1431 30.10 " 1432 8.11 " 1433 6.7 " 1434 6.5 " 1436 6.19 " 1435-min 1.7 " 1437 9.17 " 1438 10.19 " 1439 10.2 " 1440 28.9 " 1441 17.9 " 1442 12.18 " 1443 20.5 " 1444 26.8 Banjar Jadid 1445 14.1 Barani 1446 21.19 " 1447 12.12 " 1450 15.9 " 1452 11.12 Nehri 1453 3.14 " 1454 6.8 " 1455 6.8 " 1457 4.11 " 1458 4.7 " 1459 3.4 " 1460 4.12 " 1483 13.1 " 1484 5.12 " 1485 2.3 Banjar Qadim 1486 2.11 Nehri 1487 2.14 " 1488 3.4 Banjar Qadim 1489 1.18 " 1490 6.0 Nehri 1491 6.1 " 1492 8.17 " 1493 8.12 " 1494 8.3 " 1495 16.4 " 1496 2.14 Banjar Qadim 1497 15.10 Banjar Jadid 1498 11.16 " 1499 9.9 " 1500 13.4 " 1501 10.0 Nehri 1502 3.18 Banjar Qadim 1503 5.12 G.M. Kallar 1504 6.9 Nehri 1505 2.14 " 1506 6.13 " 1507 3.0 " 1508 5.16 " 1509 3.18 " 1510 4.3 " 1511 3.16 " 1512 7.0 " 2117/1513 4.9 " 2118/151 8.13 " 1514 7.10 " 1515 2.3 Banjar Qadim 1516 1.6 Nehri 1617 1.19 " 1518 7.6 G.H. Kallar 1519 8.12 " 1520 5.8 " 1521 3.19 " 1522 0.6 " 1524 0.12 Barani 1525 4.4 " 1526 1.4 Banjar Jadid 1527 30.11 Barani 1528 12.7 " 1529 0.9 " 1530 7.16 " 1531 8.12 Banjar Qadim 1532 12.19 Barani 1533 8.0 " 1534 0.12 " 1535 14.9 Barani 1536 0.18 " 1537 26.8 " 1538 18.17 " 1539 9.3 " 1540 16.14 " 1541 28.9 " 1542 23.2 " 1543 16.4 " 1544 0.16 " 1545 9.1 " 1546 8.10 " 1547 10.16 " 1548 9.8 " 1549 4.11 " 1550 3.8 " 1551 4.12 " 1552 1.18 " 1553 12.4 " 1554 3.2 " 1555 2.13 " 1556 4.3 " 1557 5.11 " 1558 7.13 " 1559-min 5.3 " 1560 5.3 Nehri 1561 5.1 " 1562 4.10 Barani 1563 3.4 " 1564 4.2 " 1565 2.0 " 1566 2.0 " 1567 6.16 " 1568 9.4 " 1569 12.0 " 1570 9.14 " 1571 1.16 " 1572 14.9 " 1573 6.19 " 1574 5.19 " 1575 6.8 " 1576 29.9 " 1577 9.6 " 1578 6.0 " 1579 4.0 " 1580 4.11 " 1581 8.8 " 1582 5.9 Barani 1583 2.4 Banjar Jadid 1584 2.12 Chahi 1585 7.4 " 1586 5.18 " 1587 3.8 " 1588 2.19 " 1589 1.9 " 1590 3.18 " 1591 10.2 " 1592 2.3 " 1593 15.10 " 1594 10.19 " 1595 10.2 " 1596 12.5 " 1597 5.5 Barani 1598 6.2 " 1599 8.2 " 1600/1601 4.7 " 1602 2.16 " 1603 3.7 " 1604 30.1 " 1605 6.19 " 1606 7.8 " 1607 6.8 " 1608 9.8 1609 14.7 Chahi 1610 7.10 " 1611 4.2 " 1612 8.4 " 1613 8.2 " 1614 5.10 " 1615 10.14 " 1616 14.7 " 1617 29.6 " 1618 19.7 " 1619 8.0 " 1620 10.12 " 1621 5.16 " 1622 5.7 " 1623 6.13 " 1624 10.6 " 1625 7.7 " 1626 6.17 " 1627 4.9 " 1628 3.2 " 1629 9.13 " 1630 2.6 Barani 1631 7.18 1632 3.0 1633 3.10 1634 2.2 Kallar 1635 3.7 Banjar Qadim 1636 7.1 " 1637 2.14 " 1638 3.16 Nehri 1639 4.13 " 1640 5.13 " 1641 12.12 Banjar Qadim 1642 10.3 " 1643 2.10 " 1644 5.14 " 1645 15.13 Banjar Jadid 1646 3.9 Chahi 1647 3.19 " 1648 8.0 " 1649 6.9 " 1649/1 7.0 " 1650 5.0 " 1651 7.9 " 1652 6.14 " 1653 5.17 " 1654 5.16 " 1655 2.0 " 1656 4.12 " 1657 6.15 " 1658 2.17 " 1659 9.9 " 1660 6.14 " 1661 15.4 " 1666 2.18 " 1667 1.15 Chahi 1.13 Ghair Mumkin 2 1668 10.13 Chahi 1669 2.5 " 1670 2.8 " 1671 3.9 " 1672 5.0 Barani 1673 1.1 Chahi 1674 2.0 Barani 1675 2.6 " 1676 4.4 " 1677 8.8 " 1678 2.12 " 1679 7.5 Banjar Qadim 1680 4.77 Chahi 1681 4.15 " 1682 10.13 " 1683 2.9 " 1684 1.2 Banjar Qadim 1685 2.10 " 1686 46.16 " 1687 2.16 " 1688 15.4 " 1689 5.18 " 1690 8.5 Chahi 1691 0.8 " 1692 3.12 " 1693 9.2 " 1694 35.9 Banjar Qadim 1695 2.7 Barani 1696 3.7 " 1697 14.1 Nehri 1698 7.3 Banjar Qadim 1699 7.17 Nehri 1700 6.14 " 1701 5.15 " 1702 6.4 " 1703 2.16 " 1704 1.13 " 1705 1.4 " 1706 2.18 " 1707 4.0 " 1708 0.16 " 1709 3.10 " 1711 5.12 " 1712 10.10 " 1713 8.10 " 1714 7.7 " 1715 7.18 " 1716 9.2 " 1717 7.2 " 1718 9.9 " 1719 1.0 " 1724 0.19 " 1725 1.1 " 1727 4.18 " 1728 3.8 " 1729 4.4 " 1730 4.2 " 1731 5.19 " 1732 7.8 " 1733 3.5 Nehri 1734 6.13 " 1735 0.9 " 1736 2.11 " 1737 5.15 " 1738 4.14 " 1739 2.12 Banjar Qadim 1740 4.0 " 1741 6.13 Thoor 1742 3.10 " 1743 1.12 " 1746 2.2 Nehri 1747 2.19 " 1748 3.13 " 1749 4.0 " 1752 4.5 " 1753 9.16 " 1754 3.12 " 1756 3.7 " 1757 2.0 " 1758 2.2 " 1759 4.12 " 1760 5.7 " 1761 4.0 " 1765 4.8 " 1766 3.2 " 1767 3.4 " 1768 5.4 " 1769 3.5 " 1770 4.1 " 1771 2.12 " 1772 2.10 " 1773 3.11 " 1774 2.2 " 1775 1.12 " 1776 3.2 " 1777 3.2 " 1778 4.0 " 1782 4.15 Chahi Nehri 1783 4.10 " 1784 2.3 " 1785 4.4 " 1786 1.14 " 1787 2.17 " 1788 3.18 " 1789 1.4 " 1790 1.4 " 1791 1.2 Chahi Nehri 1792 1.2 " 1793 2.7 " 1794 2.7 " 1795 2.14 " 1796 4.19 " 1797 4.2 " 1799 1.18 Nehri 1800 1.8 Chahi Nehri 1801 2.17 Nehri 1806 2.0 G.M. Ahata Chah 1821 1.2 Nehri 1824 2.4 " 1826 min 0.5 " 1840 4.6 " 1841 7.14 " 1843 2.3 " 1844 2.3 Chahi Nehri 1845 4.14 " 1846 5.8 Nehri 1847 4.15 " 1848 4.0 Chahi Nehri 1849 2.5 " 1850 3.0 " 1851 5.2 " 1852 4.12 " 1853 2.18 " 1854 3.0 " 1855 5.2 " 1856 5.14 " 1857 6.0 Nehri 1858 7.16 Chahi Nehri 1859 6.10 Nehri 1860 4.0 " 1864 1.15 Ghair Mumkin 1865 1.0 Chahi Nehri 1866 2.10 " 1868 5.12 " 1869 3.19 " 1870 6.0 Chahi 1871 4.14 " 1872 4.5 " 1873 1.1 " 1874 2.2 " 1875 2.9 " 1876 8.12 " 1877 2.0 " 1878 2.5 Chahi 1879 2.2 " 1880 1.12 " 1881 1.9 " 1882 3.0 " 1888 1.8 Thoor 1889 0.19 " 1890 1.5 Ghair Mumkin 1891 1.19 Chahi 1892 2.18 " 1894 0.17 Chahi 1995 0.16 " 1896 1.0 " 1897 3.18 Chahi 1898 7.14 " 1899 2.2 " 1900 0.17 Ghair Mumkin 1902 17.9 " 1903 12.17 " 1907 3.11 Chahi 1909 6.0 Nehri 1910 6.12 " 1911 5.19 " 1912 1.19 " 1913 3.8 " 1914 2.6 " 1915 3.4 " 1916 7.4 " 1917 4.0 " 1918 4.9 " 1919 6.4 " 1920 4.14 " 1921 8.15 " 1922 2.8 " 1923 2.15 " 1925 0.19 " 1926 5.10 " 1927 5.4 " 1928 3.4 " 1929 4.6 " 1930 3.7 " 1931 2.12 " 1935 8.0 " 1936 5.15 " 1937 5.0 " 1938 1.0 " 1939 4.0 Nehri 1940 11.19 " 1941 5.8 " 1942 4.18 " 1943 6.10 " 1944 6.13 " 1945 6.2 " 1946-min 9.4 " 1947 2.6 " 1948 7.2 " 1949 0.12 " 1950 0.18 " 1951 0.7 " 1952 8.14 " 1953 4.0 " 1955 6.16 " 1956 0.6 " 1956 1.17 " 1957 4.15 Chahi Nehri 1958 4.14 " 1960 4.4 " 1961 3.1 " 1962 8.14 " 1963 3.17 " 1964 1.5 " 1965 1.18 " 1966 1.12 " 1967 4.3 " 1968 2.5 Thoor 1969 1.19 Nehri 1971 0.5 Thoor 1972 1.5 Chahi 1973 1.19 " 1974 5.14 " 1975 3.5 " 1976 3.4 " 1977 3.2 " 1978 3.8 " 1979 2.8 " 1980 2.16 Nehri 1981 4.3 " 1982 2.5 1985 3.16 " 1986 4.0 " 1987 5.4 " 1988 1.10 Chahi Nehri 1989 29.4 " 1990 2.0 " 1991 3.18 Nehri 1992 5.17 " 1993 24.1 " 1994 21.6 " 1995 4.6 " 1996 4.4 Thoor 1997 13.11 " 1998 6.0 Nehri 1999 9.16 " 2000 25.14 Thoor 2001 14.14 " 2002 0.18 " 2003 3.6 2004 1.16 " 2005 5.2 " 2009 3.0 Banjar Qadim 2010 1.0 G.M. Jhappar 2011 8.7 Chahi 2012 4.17 Banjar Jadid 2013 1.8 " 2014 8.7 Abadi 2015 3.16 Banjar Qadim 2016 3.14 " 2017 7.1 G.M. Havaili 2018 0.18 Banjar Qadim 2019 2.0 " 2020 1.0 " 2021 0.7 " 2022 2.3 G.M. Jhappar 2023 6.1 " 2024 2.2 Banjar Qadim 2025 7.0 " 2026 3.6 " 2027 7.6 " 2028 14.19 " 2029 4.7 G.M. Jhappar 2030 2.8 " 2034 2.6 " Total 5353-2-0 With issuance of the above notification the evacuee land situated in Amar Sadhu was also treated being a 'building site' which stood excluded from the compensation pool constituted under Section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and was not available for allotment against any urban or rural agriculture claim. The above said notification was still in vogue when the Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of power so vested with him in section 2 of clause (b) and sub-clause (3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement), Act 1958 issued another notification dated 16.05.1973 declaring all the agricultural lands falling within the Municipal Limits etc. as 'Building Site' restraining his subordinate settlement authorities to make any fresh allotment without approval of the competent authority. The said notification is reproduced hereunder:- "In exercise of powers conferred upon me under clause (b) of subsection (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, IO, Mr. M. Aslam Awais, C.S.P., Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab do hereby declare all the available evacuee urban land, including the one not yet confirmed to any person against units or evacuee land which may become available in future, in all the Revenue Estates situated within the Urban limits of a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee, Notified Area Committee, Town Area Committee, Small Town Committee and Sanitary Committee, or a Cantonment, throughout the Province of Punjab, as building sites, for disposal under section 13 of the said Act. " Since the promulgation of Notification dated 24.02.1966 treating the urban properties of Mouza Amar Sadhu as building site, there was no occasion with the Settlement authorities to make any allotment of said land in violation of above notifications. Moreover the above notifications were still in field as the same were neither withdrawn by the authorities nor were set aside by any competent forum in this regard. Moreover, the Settlement Laws were stood repealed with effect from 01.07.1974 with promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 and under Section 2(2) of the said Act jurisdiction of Notified Officer was restricted only to the proceedings immediately pending before the repealing Act or the matter remanded by this or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A modus operandi furnished in Section 3 of the Act regarding the disposal of the urban land under a policy to be framed by the Government in this regard. For the disposal of urban evacuee properties/ buildings sites, the Provincial Government promulgated scheme 1977 under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties situated in the Province of the Punjab in 1977 (The Scheme, 1977). Para 1 (d) of the Scheme i bid, contains the definition of Building Site which is reproduced as under:-- "Building Site" means any vacant plot of land which is not within a well-defined compound of a permanent building and includes:-- (i) A site on which the permanent construction, if any, does not exceed in area by 1/8th of the site; (ii) any site on which any building existed but was completely demolished by floods, fire, incendiary or by any natural calamity. From the perusal of the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act No. XIV of 1975 as well as paras 6, 11, 12 and 30 of Scheme 1977, a building site should only be disposed of through an unrestricted public auction in terms of Para-11 of the Scheme 1977 ibid. Admittedly all the evacuee land vest with the provincial government against the paid consideration and attained the status of public properties and public functionaries are the trusty/custodians of the public/ State land which land could only be disposed of in accordance with law and most transparent and suitable modus operandi which better serve the case is putting such property to public auction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Revenue) Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1997 SCMR 1635) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "

18. The Government of the Punjab Province then prepared and prescribed Scheme for the management and disposal of available urban properties (See PLD 1977 Punjab Statute page 62). Certain provisions of the Scheme were amended in 1985 (See PLD 1985 Punjab Statute page 6). The terms "available properties" and "building sites" were defined in paragraphs 1 (c) and 1(d) of the Scheme, 1977. Paragraph 6 provided that an available building site on which a person in possession has raised a permanent construction and applied for its transfer may be transferred to him along with an area which does not exceed three times the constructed area on the transfer price and where any person having made a permanent construction on a building site did not apply for transfer, it should be disposed of through unrestricted public auction along with the construction. The value of such construction shall be determined by the Deputy Administrator and paid to such a person out of the auction proceeds by such authority as may be specified. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme also provides for auction of the building site." (emphasis supplied) The vires of the above notification dated 16.05.1973 were assailed by different persons but finally it came under judicial scrutiny before the August Supreme Court and said notification was upheld in case reported as Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Rev.)/CSS and others (1997 SCMR 1635) whereas after the Repealing Act, 1975 there exists no agricultural urban land in Moza Amar Sadhu, Lahore for any allotment or adjustment against unsatisfied claims of produce index units and the claimants holding any unsatisfied entitlement pending PIUs may seek any other remedy if available under the law, whereas they stood disentitled to obtain allotment of urban land in satisfaction of pending units or get alternate allotment of land. Admittedly the land of revenue estate of village Amar Sadhu, Lahore definitely falls within the ambit of the Notification dated 24.02.1966 as well as 16.05.1973 whereby the Chief Settlement Commissioner has already declared it as 'building site' leaving no space for any allotment of said land to any claimant and if any allotment has been obtained in contravention of the above notification that would be illegal and void ab initio.

10. Now adverting to the allotment of M. Zaheer Siddique, it evinces from the record appended with instant petition (W.P.No.96-R/2010), that land measuring 91 Kanal 16 Marla, Mouza Amar Sadhu, Lahore was allegedly allotted to him on 30.03.1971 as Tayyandar, whereas according to the available revenue record, the Provincial Government is shown owner of the disputed land and the Chief Settlement Commissioner is in possession of the same. Similarly the Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1968-69 reflects the ownership of the Central Government over the suit land and Muhammad Munir son of Labhu, Allah Ditta son of Jan Muhammad and Mahar Din were entered as ghair dakheelkar and the cultivation possession was with Sher Muhammad son of Jahania. As per the copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1972-1973, appended with this petition, the name of Muhammad Zaheer Siddique is shown entered as Tayyandar without any reference to the foundational order of the competent authority whereby he was determined as Tayyandar and no other document was produced before this Court to show the validly made allotment of the said land as a tayyandar in his favour, as such he was not holding any absolute allotment confirming any title upon him. Admittedly, there is no any allotment order is attached with the petition passed by any competent authority in favour of petitioners, but learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that only the entry of ownership reflected in Jamabandi is sufficient compliance of law and non-sanctioning of mutation is inconsequential, suffice it to say in this regard that the entry in the record must have been recorded on the basis of foundational order of allotment passed by the competent authority whereas mere any entry in the record of right without existence of any order of competent authority carry no significance. I have perused the copies of Jamabandi for the years 1972-1973 appended with this petition and in the column of ownership (column No.3), the land is still shown in ownership of the Central Government whereas the names of petitioners is written in the column No.4 meant to show the possession of cultivator and there is no any copy of Jamabandi placed on record to show that the names of the petitioners/the alleged allottees, were written in the column of ownership (column No.3). There is no any mutation is available on record in favour of the alleged allottee sanctioned in respect of transfer of ownership right (tabdeeli hakoq-e-malkiyat). The entire record of all the RL.IIs were sealed on 16.05.1973 under the order of competent authority due to imposition of complete ban on the further allotment on account of declaration of all the urban agricultural land as building sites which factum oust the possibility of any allotment at Khata RL-II in favour of any claimant namely M. Zaheer Siddique and his allotment was patently illegal. So far as the case of Akhtar un Nisa etc. is concerned (W.Ps. Nos.76-R of 2010 and 136-R of 2010) the petitioners claimed to be the allottees of land measuring 176 Kanals in Mauza Amar Sidhu against the evacuee claim of Aziz Ahmad, their predecessor in interest, suffice it to say that a s per the available record, the suit land was allegedly allotted by Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore on 20.07.1970 which was confirmed on 10.03.1971 at Khata RL.II No.582 in the name of one Muhammad Nawaz Khan but Akthar-un-Nisa etc. claimed the allotment of said land on 01.07.1971 and its confirmation in their favour on 15.03.1972, whereas after the allotment of said land to Muhammad Nawaz Khan etc. the land wen out of the settlement pool and was not available for any further allotment to Mst. Akhtar-un-Nisa etc., as such, this fact is sufficient to declare that the alleged allotment in favour of Akhtar-un-Nisa etc. was based on fraud, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

11. As regard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter is a past and closed transaction and Settlement authority is debarred to reopen the same, suffice it to say in this regard that as the record of the case shows the existence of a colourful exercise applied with inter se collusiveness of the parties to usurp the valuable evacuee / State property, as such, protection cannot be given to the petitioners under the past and closed transaction. Moreover, connivances of the parties with the adjudicator who does not enlarge his jurisdiction at his own whims and caprice and any such order passed by an interested authority is coram non-judice, void, tainted with grotesque motive which does not have any legal protection and will never be considered as past and closed transaction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has elaborately discussed and answered the matter of past and closed transaction in a recent judgment reported as Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmad and others (2017 SCMR 206) declaring that the principle of past and closed transaction would apply in case where rights were created under the valid law, even if such law was subsequently lapsed or was removed from the statute book, be considered as protected under the doctrine of past and closed transaction. The Courts are duty bound to protect the rights and interests created under a law and deny to protect such rights obtained under an invalid law. Where a party claiming the protection of rights created under a law but failed to pass the test of constitutionality, as determined by the court, it could not take the plea of past and closed transaction. Reliance is also placed on Province of the Punjab through Member Judicial-V/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Board of Revenue, Lahore v. Notified Officer, Lahore and others (2018 YLR 2073). Admittedly the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed through promulgation of and the Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 whereafter no fresh allotment could be made by the Notified Officer/CSC and if any earlier allotment of evacuee land was obtained fraudulently he has the inbuilt inherent power to investigate the matter of fraudulent allotment of the evacuee land as the fraudulent allotment wears no sanctity in the eyes of law. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has a jurisdiction to adjudicate or investigate the genuineness of the evacuee's claim, and allotment made whereof if he found the existence of any fraud committed in obtaining the allotment of the evacuee property, he can reverse the said allotment order. The issue of jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Notified Officer has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent judgment reported as Messrs Beach Luxury Hotels, Karachi v. Messrs Anas Muneer Ltd. and others (2016 SCMR 222) wherein it is observed that when a matter of allotment is re-opened, the Settlement Authority has the jurisdiction to re-examine all the facts pertaining to the title of the parties from the very inception of claim and to decide the matter according to available record as per law. In another judgment cited as Virasat Ullah Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) and another (1969 SCMR 154), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:-- "We are unable to see any point in this leave petition except the uneasiness on the part of the petitioner to undo the notice issued to him by the Settlement Commissioner which merely required that the petitioner should disclose his credential as the transferee of the property in dispute. The learned Single Judge has directed that the entitlement of the petitioner should be duly examined and we see no apparent reason why the petitioner wants to avoid this examination. The grievance of the petitioner at this stage is baseless and premature. This petition is dismissed." (emphasis supplied) The above said view has been reiterated in case reported as Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331). Moreover Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 confers an inherent jurisdiction to an authority which has passed the order that said authority has the jurisdiction to undo the erroneous or illegal order passed by it. Similarly if any benefit has been obtained from authority by practicing misrepresentation or fraud, the same forum is vested inbuilt jurisdiction to undo the same. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) Board of Revenue Punjab and others (PLD 1991 SC 691) has held that where the allotment order made by the authorities was illegal, without jurisdiction, based on fraud and forgery, in that eventuality Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Notified Officer can interfere with illegal transfer of properties by its own motion against the exposed fraud or forgery and in such like matter, the superior Courts should avoid to exercise their discretionary writ jurisdiction to annul the such order, even though it was clearly without jurisdiction. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "Putting this observation in juxtaposition to the present case; if the allotments relied upon by the appellants made by the Settlement functionaries were illegal and without jurisdiction and indeed if they were also based on fraud and forgery, in that eventuality even if the Board of Revenue which exposed fraud and forgery and set aside illegal transfer of properties worth millions by its own order, the High Court would not in exercise of its discretionary (Writ) jurisdiction annul the order of the Board of Revenue, even though, to borrow the language used in the case of Raunaq Ali the latter "was clearly without jurisdiction." Further in another judgment reported as Shamrooz Khan v. Muhabbat Khan and another (1989 SCMR 819), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to issue notices on the complaint wherein it reveals that the order of transfer was procured on the basis of fraud and non-existent documents. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra) is reproduced as under:- "The jurisdiction of the Tribunal or the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in this case to examine the question of forgery and fabrication in his own record has been upheld by the learned Judge in the High Court and it follows from our decision in the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331). On no principle, known to the Constitutional jurisdiction, the power of the Tribunal to adjudicate a matter within its jurisdiction could be pre-empted by the High Court in the words in which it has been done. The Custodian of the record is the best judge in the first place to determine the veracity, the correctness and the genuineness of its own record. It should have been given an opportunity to discharge its duty in that respect. It is only then that a review of the adjudication could have taken place in the High Court. We accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of High Court, recall the writ and allow the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to proceed with the determination of the allegations made in the Application in accordance with the law applicable. No order as to costs."

12. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per a case cited as Javed Akhtar Khan v. DCO/District Collector, Sheikhupura (PLJ 2019 Lahore 647) once an order of allotment was given effect in the record of rights (Jamabandi), the non-attestation of mutation is inconsequential under Rule 7-A of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959. To answer this proposition, it is expedient to discuss the provisions Section 33, Section 34, Section 35 and Section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which deal with significance of Registration and attestation of mutation in the revenue record. The above said provisions are reproduced as under: "

33. Annual record:-- (1) .. .. (2) . (3) For the purposes of the preparation of the annual record, the Collector shall cause to be kept up by the patwari of each estate a register of mutations and such other registers as the Financial Commissioner may prescribe.

34. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to land-owners, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants: - (1) Any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a landowner, assignee of land-revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate. (2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the patwari. (3) The patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and of which a report should have been made to him under one or other of those subsections and has not been so made. (4) A Revenue Officer shall from time to time inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing sub-sections, report should have been made to the patwari and entry made in that register and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of the right acquired. (5) Such an entry shall be made by the insertion in that record of description of the right acquired and by the omission from that record of any entry in any record previously prepared which by reason of the acquisition has ceased to be correct.

35. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to other persons:--The acquisition of any interest in land other than a right referred to in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall:- (a) if it is undisputed, be recorded by the patwari in such manner as the Financial Commissioner may by rule in this behalf prescribe; and (b) if it is disputed, be entered by the patwari in the register of mutations and dealt with in the manner prescribed in sub-sections (4) and (5) of the last foregoing section.

37. Restrictions on variations of entries in records:--Entries in record-of-rights or in annual records, except entries made in annual records by Patwaris under clause (a) of section 35 with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interest refered to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by- (a) making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred; (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties; (c) making new maps where it is necessary to make them. (emphasis supplied) Through the Punjab Land Revenue (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1963 (Ordinance XVIII of 1963), section 37-A was added in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 on which basis the provisions of subsection (3) of section 33, section 34, section 35 and section 37, reproduced above, were suspended and it was decided that in pursuance of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 all the entries required to be made in the record of rights directly without observing the procedure prescribed by subsection (3) of section 33, section 34, section 35 and section

37. For ready reference the relevant provision of the Ordinance ibid is reproduced as under: "Insertion of section 37-A in Act XVII of 1887.

After section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as applicable to the Divisions of Lahore, Rawalpindi, Sargodha, Multan, Bahawalpur, Peshawar, Dera Ismail Khan, Quetta and Kalat and the Nasirabad Sub-Division of Jacobabad District, the following new section shall be added, namely :- "37-A. Where any interest in evacuee land is acquired by the Central Government or the Provincial Government or where such interest is transferred by the Central Government or the Provincial Government to a claimant in pursuance of the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (Act XLVII of 1958) and the rules made thereunder the provisions of subsection (3) of section 33, section 34, section 35 and section 37 shall be suspended and entries required to be made in the record-of-rights or annual record in pursuance of the said Act or the rules shall be made directly without observing the procedure prescribed by the sub-section (3) of section 33, section 34, section 35 and section 37. " Thereafter, vide notification No.S.R.O(R)/64 dated 24.12.1964, rule 7-A was added in the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959. For ready reference, rule 7-A is reproduced as under: "7-A. Mutation. (1) After the acquisition of the land under Section 4, the Revenue Officer of the area concerned shall cause a mutation of extinction of all evacuee rights and interests in the entire estate to be entered and disposed of and the Central Government shall be substituted for the evacuee holders of right in the estate. (2) After the land has been finally allotted and settled as prescribed by the preceding rule, the Revenue Authority of the area concerned shall, for the purpose of making entries in respect of rights and interests of the allottees in the record of rights or register Haq Daran Zameen or in village form No.VII, as the case may be, treat the entries in R.L.II at par with those in a register of mutation and it shall not be necessary to sanction any mutation for the purpose." On 28.12.1967, the Province of West Pakistan through a notification No.599/67/319-U.(1) enforced the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 w.e.f. 01.01.1968 and under Section 184 of the said Act, the Punjab Land Revenue (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1963 was repealed. Thereafter on 16.05.1968, through a circular No.102, the Settlement Department issued instructions/directions to the allottees as well as to the revenue authorities to incorporate the mutations under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 regarding allotment of evacuee land made by the Settlement authorities. For ready reference, circular No.102 dated 06.05.1968 is reproduced as under: (6) INCORPORATION OF ENTRIES OF REGISTER R.I., II, IN THE RECORDS-OF-RIGHTS AND PERIODICAL RECORDS (REGISTER HAQDARAN ZAMIN) (D.L.R.'s Circular Letter No. 102, dated 6.5.1968 addressed to all D.Cs. and Settlement Officers etc.) (emphasis supplied)

13. Section 39 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 elucidates the vitality of record of right and Periodical Record which are meant to demonstrate the statements showing, the persons who are land-owners, tenants or recipient any of the rents, profits or produce of the estate or to occupy land therein; the nature and extent of the interest of those person, and the conditions and liabilities attaching thereto; and the rent, land-revenue, rates, cesses or other payments, due from each person. Under Clauses 7.1 (a), 7.2 of Land Record Manual (Chapter 7) Part-A, the entry of mutation is prescribed which is reproduced as under:- "7.

1. Entry of Mutation: The mutation register is prescribed in [sections 33 (3) and 34 of the Land Revenue Act] for the entry of [every acquisition of any right or interest in an estate as a landowner, assignee or occupancy tenant], and under [section 35] for disputed acquisition of other rights. The mutation register is not a part of the record-of-rights and its entries do not share in the presumption of truth attached to that record. All mutations of rights of ownership including voluntary partitions, shall be entered by the patwari in the register when they are reported to him by the transferee as required by [section 34 of the Land Revenue Act], and if not so reported, then as soon as they appear to have been acted upon. When he enters a mutation affecting the shajra nasb the patwari shall not in pencil the number of the mutation against the entry affected. If and when the mutation is sanctioned he shall amend the shajra nasb in red ink in accordance with the mutation order. To effect the prompt entry of mutations the following procedure shall be followed:-- (i) On an oral or application in writing, made to the Patwari by either of the parties concerned, necessary entries in the remarks column of the mutation sheet shall be made immediately. (ii) As laid down in the standing instructions, in para 3.81 the factum of receipt of such a report or application shall also be recorded in the (iii) In no case shall the completion of the entries in the mutation sheet remain pending with the Patwari for more than 15 days without obtaining prior approval of the circle revenue officer. The reasons for the delay, if any, shall be recorded in the remarks column. (iv) Presence of parties is not necessary for entering a mutation; hence their absence or the Patwari's preoccupation with other work shall not be accepted as pretext for delayed entry of mutations beyond 15 days of the original report. Action shall invariably be initiated by the halqa revenue officer whenever a case of delayed entry is detected. In case he fails to do so action shall be taken against the halqa officer himself. (v) It shall not be difficult for a Patwari (resident official) to learn in normal course of the occurrence of death of landowner in his small circle. Mutations of inheritance in such case can, therefore, be entered by the Patwari suo motu on the basis of his personal knowledge without waiting for any formal intimation from any quarter. In further failure to enter a mutation of inheritance on the death of a resident land-owner shall be construed to reflect adversely on the vigilance and awareness of Patwari and shall be taken due notice of. (vi) It shall be the duty of the Patwari to bring the fact of having entered a mutation to the notice of the halqa officer during the Patwari's next visit to the Tehsil headquarters if the officer has not toured his circle earlier and noted on every pending mutation. The halqa officer shall initial all mutations entered by the Patwari or Tapedar since his last visit and shall note the fact for planning his subsequent tour programme.] [7.1-A. Report under section 42 regarding acquisition of rights to the Assistant Commissioner or Chairman of the Union Council. - In addition to the procedure referred to in para 7.1 any interested person may report regarding acquisition of right orally or in writing to the - (a) Assistant Commissioner concerned on the first 4 working days of every month when the Patwari attend the Tehsil Officer; and (b) Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Union Council concerned on every Sunday when Patwari attend the office of the Union Council under paragraph 3.17(2). The Assistant Commissioner or the Chairman/Vice-Chairman as the case may be, shall thereupon cause such report to be entered by the Patwari in the Roznamcha Waqiati and in the register of mutation.] 7.2. Reference in jamabandi (Register Haqdaran Zamin) : The patwari should, whenever a mutation case is entered in the register, not the serial number and nature of the transfer in pencil in the column of remarks of the [jamabandi] opposite the appropriate holding. If and when the mutation is sanctioned, he should make the above note in red ink. Serial numbers of fard badar entries should also be similarly noted and in order to distinguish them from the serial number of mutations the word "badar" should be added. Fard badar entries will thus be referred to as (1) badar, (2) badar, etc., etc." Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 deals with the procedure in respect of making of that part of periodical records which relates to landowners. For ready reference, section 42 is reproduced as under:- "

42. Making of that part of periodical records which relates to land-owners.

(1) Any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land-owner, or a tenant for a fixed term exceeding one year, shall, within three months from the date of such acquisition, report his acquisition of right to the Patwari of the estate, who shall- (a) record such report in the Roznamacha to be maintained in the prescribed manner; (b) furnish a copy of the report so recorded, free of cost, to the person making the report; and (c) send a copy of the report, within a week of its receipt by him, to the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council within which the estate is situated. Note: In the Province of Punjab the words "Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council" have been substituted by the words "Office of the Union Administration" by Punjab Ordinance LV of 2001, PLD 2002 Pun.St.154. (2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or is otherwise unable to report, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the Patwari. (3) The Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations ever report made to him under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and shall also make an entry in the Roznamcha and in the register of mutations respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and of which report should have been made to him under either of those subsections and has not been so made. (4) The report made to the Patwari under subsection (1) or subsection (2) or recorded by him under subsection (3) shall be displayed in such manner as may be prescribed. (5) If the Patwari fails to record or to display a report made to him under subsection (1) or sub-section (2), the person making the report may make the report, in writing, to the Revenue Officer concerned and the [Chairman of the Union Committee, Town Committee or Union Council] in which the estate is situated, by registered post acknowledgement due and the Revenue Officer shall thereupon cause such report to be entered in the register of mutations. (6) A Revenue Officer shall, from time to time, inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing sub-sections, report should have been made to the Patwari and entries made in that register, and, shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to any entry in the periodical record of the right acquired. (7) Except in cases of inheritance or where the acquisition of the right is by a registered deed or by or under an order or decree of a Court, the Revenue Officer shall make the order under sub-section (6) in the presence of the person whose right has been acquired, after such person has been identified by two respectable persons, preferably from Lambardars or members of the "Zila Council, Tehsil Council or Town Council" or Union Council concerned, whose signatures or thumb-impressions shall be obtained by the Revenue Officer on the register of mutations. (8) An inquiry or an order under subsection (6) shall be made in the common assembly in the estate to which the mutation, which is the subject matter of the inquiry, relates. (9) Where a Revenue Officer makes an order under sub-section (6) in regard to the acquisition of any right, an entry shall be made in the periodical record by the insertion therein of a description of the right acquired and by the omission from such record of any entry in any record previously prepared, which, by reason of the acquisition, has ceased to be correct. (10) If within three months of the making of a report of the acquisition of a right under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), or the recording by the Patwari of an entry in the Roznamcha under subsection (3) respecting the acquisition of any right, no order is made by the Revenue Officer under subsection (6), he shall report the cause of delay to the Collector in the prescribed manner. (11) The Revenue Officer shall, in the prescribed manner, send or cause to be sent, the gist of an order made by him under sub-section (6), to the person whose right is acquired, and also to the office of the Union Administration in which the estate is situated." From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is very much clear that any person acquiring any right as a purchaser, inheritor, donee, mortgagee or otherwise in any estate, the Patwari shall record such report in Roznamcha to be maintained in the prescribed manner furnished copy of report within a week to concerned Town Committee or Union Council and subsection (3) of section 42, the Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 42 and shall also make an entry in the Roznamcha and in the register of mutations regarding the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and of which report should have been made to him under either of those subsections and has not been so made. Under Section 184 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, all the revenue laws mentioned in Schedule Parts I and II, including the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 as well as the Punjab Land Revenue (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1963, were repealed and a complete procedure is given in Sections 39 to 48 of Chapter V of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the incorporation of the Record of Rights and documents required therein and it is settled law that statutory law on the subject shall prevail over the rules guidelines, instructions etc. Reliance is placed on Province of the Punjab, through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Syed Munir Hussain Shah [1998 PLC (C.S.) 868] and Additional Collector, Sales Tax, Lahore and another v. Rupafab Limited and others (2001 PTD 2383). Moreover the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide notification No.1624/ 78/855/RL dated 19th June, 1978 decided that any allotment which has not yet been incorporated in the revenue record before coming into force of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 or within one year after passing of allotment order, whichever is later, may be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by ante-dating the entries in the register R.L.II and should be considered as cancelled forthwith, after hearing objections, if any, of the so-called allottee. For ready reference, aforesaid notification is reproduced as under:- No.1624/78/855/RL Office of the Member Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) Punjab. Dated Lahore the 19.6.1978. From Mian Waheed-ud-Din Rathoro, Secretary (Rural) (Settlement and Rehab. Wing) Board of Revenue Punjab. To

1. All the wholetime Settlement Commissioners (L) and Addl: Settlement Commissioners (L) Punjab.

2. All the Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners (ASC) (L) in the Punjab. Subject: Allotment of resumed land to informers etc. Mr. A.K.Khalid, C.S.C./Member Board of Revenue (S&R) Punjab. MEMORANDUM: The Chief Settlement Commis-sioner/Member, Board of Revenue (S&R) Punjab, has been pleased to decide that any allotment that has not been incorporated in the revenue record before coming into force of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, may be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by ante-dating the entries in the register R.L.II and should be cancelled forthwith, after hearing objections, if any, of the so-called allottee.

2. The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member Board of Revenue (S&R) Punjab, has further been pleased to order that all cases where land has been resumed on 'Mukhbari' applications filed by attorneys of the original claimants should invariably be submitted to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for necessary orders as he thinks necessary with regard to the proposal/allotment of the land so resumed, under Section 14 (1A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958, read with section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.

3. You are, therefore, requested kindly to ensure strict compliance of orders of Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Member Board of Revenue accordingly, without further delay. Sd/-SECRETARY RURAL) (SETT: & REHAB. WING) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB. No.1624/78/855/RL dated 19th June, 1978. A copy is forwarded to all the Commissioners/Addl. Commissioners (Settlement Commissioners (Land) Punjab for information and necessary action. Sd/-SECRETARY RURAL) (SETT: & REHAB. WING) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB. Despite the above unambiguous instructive or the restrictive order of the competent authority, the subordinate revenue officials keep on incorporating the allotment order in the revenue record which necessitated the reiteration and recirculation of above notification. The successor Chief Settlement Commissioner vide notification dated 7th December 2000 again directed the subordinate revenue authorities to stop the further implementation of bogus allotments in revenue record in terms of notification dated 5th September, 1979. For ready reference, notification whereof is reproduced as under:- No.2127-2000/3321/PA/Secy (S&R), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Farid Kot House, Lahore, Dated the 7th Dec: 2000 From The Board of Revenue, Punjab. To

1. All Commissioners in the Province.

2. All Deputy Commissioners in the Province. Subject: ORDER OF SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE / MEMBER JUDICIAL-I, IN ROR NO.2469/ 95, SHAUKAT ALI ETC VERSUS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB DATED 18-07-2000. It is a matter of common knowledge that various persons from all walks of life, either sitting behind the scene or in the open are out to grab valuable evacuee property through fraud, forgery or manipulation. Two cases were recently detected in which allotment orders were fabricated and bogus verification was made. The Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala has been directed to get the criminal cases registered against the culprits. The case mentioned at subject noted above was decided by the Senior Member/Member-Judl.1, dated 18-7-2000 copy of which is enclosed. The revenue authorities implemented bogus allotment in Register RL-II dated 1971 in revenue record in year 1995. Whereas instructions issued by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing of Board of Revenue, Punjab, Notification No. 1624/ 78/854, dated 19-06-1978 are as under:- "The Chief Settlement Commis-sioner/Member, Board of Revenue (S& R) Punjab, has been pleased to decide that any allotment that has not been incorporated in the revenue record before coming into force of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 or within one year of the passing of allotment order, whichever is later, may be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by anti-dating the entries in the register R.L.II and should be cancelled forthwith, after hearing objections, if any, of the so-called allottee". In view of the situation explained above, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab/Member, Board of Revenue, has been pleased to direct as follows:-

1. No mutation transferring proprietary rights of the land allotted by any order should be sanctioned without prior approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab verbally as well as in writing by an officer not less than a Deputy Commissioner of the District personally to avoid further fraud.

2. A fraud is always a fraud and it is well settled law that nobody can be allowed to reap the Fruit of fraud and retain ill -gotten gains. In order to achieve this objective all allotments made after repeal of Settlements Laws in year 1975 will have to be reviewed and as a start the Deputy Commissioners are requested to send all allotment orders received in their districts after 1990 to the Board of Revenue, Punjab for re-verification.

3. Notification dated 5th September, 1979 lays down that allotments obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated orders are total nullity in the eyes of law and, therefore, should be ignored as non-existent and the land treated as still available for disposal. The Deputy Commissioner are directed to trace out such allotments and take necessary action in the light of these instructions. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/ CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE NO. AND DATE EVEN A copy is forwarded for information to:-

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore

2. The Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE/ CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE From perusal of the above mentioned provision of Land Revenue Act, policy guidelines as well as the notification dated 19.06.1978, issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner any allotment which has not yet been incorporated in the revenue record before coming into force of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 or within one year after passing of allotment order, whichever is later, may be deemed to have been obtained fraudulently by ante-dating the entries in the register R.L.II and should be considered as cancelled forthwith, after hearing objections, if any, of the so-called al lottee. From the perusal of the aforesaid notifications, it was mandatory for an allottee to get incorporate the allotment in the revenue record within the prescribed period and non-compliance of the above provisions and policy decision badly frustrate the validity and veracity of the alleged allotment. While in the cited judgment Javed Akhtar Khan v. DCO/District Collector, Sheikhupura (PLJ 2019 Lahore 647) the aforementioned provisions of law, facts, amendments, circular No.102 and notification dated 14.06.1978 were neither presented before the Hon'ble Court nor properly argued for which reason the facts mentioned in preceding paragraphs of this Court's judgment have not been considered and discussed in the supra pronouncement, as such, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not helpful for his case here and the sanction of mutation in the revenue record regarding the allotment of evacuee under a valid transaction is necessary to avoid or eliminate the further mischief and to confer a complete authenticity to the title of a party. As discussed above the evacuee land in Mouza Amar Sadhu was precluded from Rehabilitation process and was not part of the compensation pool and same could not be allotted against any evacuee claim in existence of Notification of 1966 as well as 1973 and any allotment obtained in violation of the above policy notification, such allotment has no legal worth and value, as such the allotments of Zaheer Siddique and Syeda Akhtar un Nisa have rightly been cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner through the impugned order and W. P.No.76-R of 2010 deserves dismissal.

15. Now coming to the matter of subsequent al ienee from the allottees M.Zaheer Siddiqui subject matter of W.P.No.96-R of 2010. Admittedly Sh. Rauf Ahmad claimed to be the donee of the disputed land from Zaheer Ahmad Siddique who issued a document of power of attorney in favour of Sh. Farooq Ahmad the real brother of the petitioner and it was the said attorney (Sh. Farooq Ahmad) who gifted out the said land to his real brother (the petitioner) through gift mutation No.39149 dated 06.01.2003, whereas under the law the attorney is denuded of any authority to make gift on behalf of the principal rather it is personal act of the principal to pronounce gift and attorney can only finalize the subsequent stipulation of gift already made by the principal. Moreover, admittedly donee is brother of the attorney who cannot make any alienation to his close relative without obtaining prior special permission from the principal, as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. Reliance is placed on Reliance is placed on the cases of Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (deceased) through LRs and others (PLD 1985 SC 341) and Mst.Naila Kausar and another v. Sardar Muhammad Bakhsh (2016 SCMR 1781). The learned counsel for the petitioner (in W.P.No.96- R/2010) argued that the Chief Minister Punjab after holding an inquiry regarding the claim of the petitioner, ordered to restore the mutation in favour of the petitioner and the Settlement authority lack jurisdiction to undo the order of higher authorities, suffice it to say that the Chief Minister has no authority in law to allot or give the State land to any person. Reliance can also be placed on the case titled as American International School System v. Mian Muhammad Ramzan and others (2015 SCMR 1449), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "

21. As discussed above, the petitioner-School was not eligible to be allotted evacuee land under the Scheme, 1977. There is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner-School that it was allotted subject land in the public interest. The Chief Minister does not possess any plenary authority and or jurisdiction to allot any land as a matter of grace or favour at his whims and fancy, but in accordance with law. The public functionaries are the custodians of the public/State land, which could only be disposed of in accordance with law. "

16. Now attending to the issue of subsequent alienee, D.H.A. (petitioner in W.P. No. 172-R/201 0), who claims to be a purchaser of the land from Mst. Akhtar un Nisar claimant/allottee, suffice it to say that admittedly they derived alleged right from their vendors and subsequent alienee who stepped into shoes of their vendor are debarred to claim any better title and subsequent alienees have no protection under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act and if any infirmity, deficiency or flaw subsequently emerges in the title of owner that shall always travel with the land and transferee is precluded to raise plea of protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Reliance can be placed on the case titled as Muhammad Yamin and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1976 SCMR 489). Further reliance is placed on the case as Bashir Ahmad and others v. Additional Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner (L) and others (1983 SCMR 1199) held as under:- "...Since, an allotment of land is subject to the provision of sections 10 and 11, every purchaser from a allottee is to be saddled with the knowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to the incidence of those sections and as such he cannot raise the plea of protection on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. His remedy is not against the Department but against the vendor. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the view taken in the earlier two cited cases will govern the contention raised before us. " In another case titled Talib Hussain and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2003 SCMR 549), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "It is important to emphasis that petitioner's entitlement is based upon the entitlement of Syed Nizamuddin, therefore, petitioner either to have survive or sink depending upon determination of legal status of the property which was transferred to him and as now he has failed to keep his entitlement alive, therefore, petitioner's claim is bound to be rejected." In a case titled Abdul Hamid v. M.B.R. and others (1994 CLC 1160), this Court held as under:- "

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that all the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value of the land from the transferee and they are entitled to retain the same. It is not disputed that transfer in favour of Noor Muhammad was found to be fraudulent. Not only that it was further found by the Notified Officer that Noor Muhammad, the real claimant, A was not traceable and some other person had obtained allotment by impersonating him. As the vendor of the petitioners had no right in the land, he could not pass any title to the petitioners and they have no consequently legal right to retain the land (See Gul Muhammad and others v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCMR 491) and Manzoor Hussain v. Fazal Hussain and others (1984 SCMR 1027). " In a case titled as Mst. Aziz Bibi and 22 others v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) with the Powers of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore Division and another (2002 YLR 3268) this Court has observed that "since an allotment of land is subject to the provision or sections 10 and 11, every transferee from an allottee is to be saddled with the knowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to the incidence of those sections and as such he cannot raise the plea of protection on the principle of bona fide transferee as envisaged in section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. In another case titled as Rasheed Ahmad and 2 others v. Additional Commissioner (Rev.) Notified Officer Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and others (2007 CLC 1801) the learned Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "

8. Abdul Baqi is the original allottee. His claim was found bogus. Sale in favour of respon-dents will not confer better title to them. They will sink or swim with him and thus, are not protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. We respectfully follow the above view. As the alleged allotments in favour of Muhammad Zaheer Siddiqui and Mst. Akhtar-un-Nisa etc. have been declared as bogus, as such, the subsequent alienees have to sail and sink with their transferer and they are debarred to claim any better title. The Chief Settlement Commis-sioner/Notified Officer, after minutely perusing the record and hearing the parties, rightly passed the impugned order which does not require any interference. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any perversity, illegality or any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order calling for any interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

17. So far as the writ petition of Syed Moiz Ahmad and others who claim to be the progeny of the predeceased son of Syed Aziz Ahmad the displaced person and assert their entitlement in the allotted land in favour of Akhtar un Nisar etc. suffice it to say that the allotment of their grand-mother Syeda Akhtar un Nisa has been declared as illegal, as such their claim stood automatically extinguished and the W.P. No.136-R of 2010 has gone infructuous.

18. In view of above, this writ petition as well as all the connected writ petitions are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. MH/R-1/L Petitions dismissed.