1976 PLP 524 (SCMR)

‑‑Art. 199 Writ jurisdiction Cannot be invoked to provide a shield to orders of verification of claims obtained by fraud‑Registra tion of Claims (Displaced' Persona) Act (III of1956). S. M. Zafar, Senior: Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioners. Maqbul Elahi Malik, Advocate for Respondent No.

1. Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 2nd July 1976. MUNAMMAD YAQUB ALI. C. J; ‑An inquiry has been ordered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on a complaint made by Lai Din against Qutbuddin and 34 others, petitioners herein that they have obtained numerous allotments of land on the basis of false said fraudulent claims. Pending the inquiry Chief Settlement Commissioner has, by order dated 6‑7‑1972 restrained the petitioner from disposing of the land obtained by them on allotment by sale, exchange or mortgage and directed that no more land will be allotted to them. The subordinate Rehabilitation and Settlement authorities have further been directed to furnish 'forthwith' details of allotments obtained by the Petitioners in N.‑W. F. P. Baluchistan. Bind and Punjab. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated July 1972, on variety of ground which did not find favour and petition was dismissed with the remarks that there is no error of law in the order and it is not proper stage to interfere with the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Against this order the petitioners seek leave to appeal. We have heard Mr. S. M. Zafar and find no merit in the contentions raised in support of the petition. In case inquiries made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner reveal that fraud has been practised by the peti tioners on the claims registering authorities or the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities the transactions by which verification of claims and allotments of land have been obtained will, in their entirety, become void ab initio and non set in law. The contention that under the Registration of Claims Act claims already verified cannot be reviewed has, therefore, no substance. Another aspect of the case is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to provide a shield to orders of verification of claims obtained by fraud. The learned Judge, was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition on this short ground.' On the contrary if it is found that no fraud has been practised and allotments have been obtained in due course of law then the inquiry shall automatically come to an end without resulting in irreparable loss to the petitioners. The prayer that no inquiry shall be held at all was, therefore, a tall claim which has been rightly rejected by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.