1993 PLP 1943 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 41‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑‑Cancellation of allotment of land ‑‑‑Allottee's verified claim found to be bogus‑‑‑Cancellation order of allotment was upheld uptil the High Court‑‑ Despite cancellation of allotment of land, order of cancellation was not implemented in revenue record and allotted land remained recorded in the name of allottee‑‑‑Allottee's successors‑in‑interest sold the land in question, in favour of petitioner‑‑‑Revenue record was subsequently rectified in terms of cancellation of allotment‑‑‑Petitioner (purchaser) claiming to be bona fide purchaser for value and claiming protection under S. 41, Transfer of Property Act, 1882‑‑‑Petitioner could not be termed as bona fide purchaser for value of land in question‑‑‑Inaction of revenue officials to implement the order of cancellation of allotment of land could not sanctify and infuse life into the non existent acts‑‑‑Long before the sale of land in favour of petitioner, allottee was divested of his entitlement to hold the land in question ‑‑‑Allottee being himself not entitled to hold the land in question, his successors could not confer better title on petitioner ‑‑‑Fraud and misrepresentation nullify the whole basis and any superstructure built on it must fall to the ground and crumble to pieces‑‑ No law can sanctify fraud, forgery and fabrication for building up civil rights on them‑‑‑In equitable jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to protect the product of fraud and forgery‑‑‑Petitioner was, thus, not entitled to protection under S. 41, Transfer of Property Act 1882. Muhammad Yamin and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1976 SCMR 489; Mst. Maryam Bcgum v. Ch. Shah Muhammad and others 1976 SCMR 342; Special Duty, Central Record Office and others v. Bashir Ahmad and d9 others 1977 SCMR 208; Bashir Ahmad and others v. Additional Commissioner with Powers of Settlement Commissioner (L) and others 1983 SCMR 1199; Syed Iltaf Hussain Shah v. Dr. Muhammad Din and others PLD 1985 Lah. 380; Manzoor Hussain v. Fazal Hussain and others 1984 SCMR 1027; Rehman Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1989 MLD 2883 and Muhamamd Azeem Khan v. Muhammad Amin 1987 SCMR 2015 ref. . (b) Fraud‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Fraud and misrepresentation nullify the whole basis and any superstructure built on it must fall to the ground and crumble to pieces‑‑‑No law can sanctify fraud, forgery and fabrication for building up civil rights on them‑‑‑In equitable jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to protect the product of fraud and forgery. Allah Bakhsh Gondal for Petitioner. . Rehmat was a claimant displaced person. He held a verified Claim No. 3210 for the land abandoned by him in India. On the basis of his verified claim, evacuee land situated in various revenue estates was allotted to him. 194 Kanals, 19 Marlas of agricultural land situate in revenue estate Bhoa Ehsan in Tchsil Phalia of District Gujrat, was settled upon him at Khata No.69 RLII on ;18‑1‑1957. Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his powers, as. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujrat found his verified claim bogus vide his order dated 24‑6‑1969 and ordered cancellation of the allotments of land made in his favour. The cancellation of the claim as spurious document was upheld in appeal/revision by Lahore High Court on 19‑8‑1969 and 21‑1‑1976. Copies of the orders made by the High Court were not annexed. Further, numbers of appeal/revision were also not disclosed for tracing out the relevant records from the office of the High Court. However, it was not denied that the claim was cancelled and appeal/revision preferred from the order were dismissed. Despite cancellation of the verified claim, the order was not implemented in revenue papers and the allotted land was recorded in the name of Rehmat Ullah. On his death, it was mutated in favour of his two daughters namely Kalsoom Begum and Zarina Begum. By mutation No.576, attested on 4‑5‑1991, aforesaid two women acting through an attorney sold the land in revenue estate Bhoa Ehsan to Nazir Ahmad, petitioner. One Malka alias Malku son of Sardara of revenue estate Bhoa Ehsan applied to the District Collector for correction of revenue records in line with the order for cancellation of the claim and consequent allotments made on its basis. District Collector vide his order dated 2‑2‑1993 directed implementation of the order dated 24‑6‑1969 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujrat and review of mutations in all the concerned revenue estates. He also directed for assessment and recovery of arrears of rent from the illegal occupants of the resumed lands. Against his order, two revisions were filed before Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala. One revision was filed by daughters of Rehmat‑Ullah addressed against District Collector, Gujrat and the other by Nazir Ahmad etc. directed against the same officer. Revision was dismissed in limine on 26‑4‑1993, by the learned Commissioner. Thereupon, a petition in Constitutional jurisdiction was filed in this Court for quashment of the orders passed by lower revenue authorities. Facts were not disputed. It was not denied that verified claim of Rchmat Ullah was found bogus and cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his delegated powers as Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujrat under sections 10, 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, since repealed. It was also not denied that the cancellation order was upheld and not interfered with in appeal/revision by the High Court, though the copies of the orders were not disclosed. Sole question urged at the hearing for consideration of the Court was that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the land for value without notice of any defect in the title of his sellers and, therefore, was protected under the principle contained in section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Apart from the above question, no other point was agitiated. In my view, the point was wholly unsound. In Muhammad Yamin and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1976 SCMR 489 (decided on 1st March, 1974), Mst. Maryam Begum v. Ch. Shah Muhammad and others 1976 SCMR 342, the Supreme Court found that principle ‑in section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was inapplicable. In Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office and others v. Bashir Ahmad and 9 others 1977 SCMR 208, the principle contained in section 41 was extended to the transfer by ostensible owners whose allotments were subsequently cancelled on the grounds of fraud of misrepresentation, on the ground that the transferees being not privy to fraud could not be penalised by cancellation of transfer. In Bashir Ahmad and others v. Additional Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner (L). and others, 1983 SCMR 1199, upon review of earlier three cases noticed above, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "Since an allotment of land is subject to the provisions of sections 10 and 11, every purchaser 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 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". Syed Iltaf Hussain Shah v. Dr. Muhammad Din and others, PLD 1985 Lahore 380, followed the ruling of the Supreme Court in case of Bashir Ahmad (supra) and found that principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was inapplicable to the facts. In case of Manzoor Hussain v. Fazal Hussain and others, 1984 SCM'R 1027, the Supreme Court reiterated its view taken in 1983 SCMR 1199. Reham Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1989 MLD 2823 (Lahore) expressed similar view on the inapplicability of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act to the case of a purchaser from an allottee of the land later found fraudulent and recalled on this score. Case of Muhammad Azeem Khan v. Muhammad Amin, 1987 SCMR 2015 proceeded on distinguishable facts and did not alter the earlier view of the Supreme Court taken in this behalf. Therefore, the petitioner could not be termed a bona fide purchaser for value of the land in dispute. Inaction of the revenue authority to implement the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner, canceling the verified claim of Rehmat Ullah and the allotment of land made on its basis could not sanctify and infuse life into the non‑existent acts. Long long before the sale of land in favour of the petitioner, Rehmat Ullah was divested of his entitlement to hold the land. Since he himself did not hold its ownership, his successors could not confer better estate on the petitioner. Fraud and misrepresentation nullified the whole basis and any superstructure built on it must fall to the ground and crumble to pieces. No civilized law could sanctify fraud, forgery and fabrication for building up civil rights on them. In equitable jurisdiction, it shall not be apposite to protect the product of fraud and forgery. Upon this view, writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine which I hereby do. A.A./N‑164/L Petition dismissed.