1975 PLP 344 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th March 1975. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The dispute in this case relates to an area of 112 acres of land situated in Deh 256/257, Jamsabad, in the District of Tharparkar. This land was admittedly allotted to the respondent No. 2, Mst. Faqur unnisa Begum In 19.59. The allotment was, however, cancelled on the basis of a letter purporting to have been sent by the Central Record Office, Lahore, stating that the allotment in favour of the said respondent should be cancelled, because, her claim had already been satisfied in Rawalpindi, After its cancellation,, it was allotted to the present petitioner. The allotment was confirmed and possession was delivered to her on the 11th July 1969. Subsequently, however, when it was found that the letter purporting to be from the Central Record Office, Lahore, was a forgery, the allotment in favour of the petitioner wag also cancelled. She thereupon, filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed on the ground that the order had been passed behind her back and the case was remanded for fresh decision. On remand, the Additional Settlement Commissioner again found that the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the respon dent No. 2 had been procured fraudulently by getting a forged letter from a person posing as the

0. S. D., Central Record Office Lahore, dated 17‑3‑1963. The petitioner again challenged this order by a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the came in limine. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the record we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on remand and: the High Court. There is nothing on the record to show that the claim of the respondent No. 2 had been earlier satisfied in Rawalpindi. The surreptitious manner in; which the allotment in favour of the respondent No. 2 was cancelled behind her back without examining any record or calling for any confirmation from the Central Record Office or giving the said respondent any opportunity of controverting the allegations in the said letter, clearly suggests that the cancellation was procured in an under‑hand manner. At the hearing on re an the office concerned had compared the signatures on the original letter of the 17th March 1969, and the subsequent replies to the references mat a to the O. S. D, Central Record Office, Lahore and had come to the conclusion that the signature on the original letter did not tally with the specimen signature of the O. S. D. concerned. This is a finding of fact. We see no reason to doubt its correctness. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.