1969 PLP 299 (SCMR)

G. M. Mirza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Saeedur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdur Razzak, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Respondent No. 3 in person. Date of hearing : 5th March 1969. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner No. 1, Mst. Bhano, is the daughter of one Sharfu son of Sodagar. It appears that claim forms bearing Nos. 1914/13415 and 1915/13415 were filed in Pakistan in the names of the said Sharfu and his brother Sher Din for lands alleged to have been left by them in Tehsil Panipat District Karnal. The claim forms were verified from the Central Record Room and the lands were confirmed in their names in village Sindhu, Tehsil Chunian, District Lahore, on the 7th March 1959. Thereafter Sher Din, who was mentally unsound, is said to have disappeared. Then, it is alleged, Sharfu went in his search and later he too became untraceable and was subsequently found to have died in Multan. The petitioner No. 1, as the sole heir of the said two persons, obtained mutations by inheritance and the allotments were confirmed in her name, but on the complaint of the respondent No. 3, the matter was enquired into. It was found that the said Sharfu and Sher Din had never even migrated to Pakistan and the allotments had been fraudulently obtained in their names. These allotments were, accordingly, cancelled. The order of cancellation was upheld in appeal by the Settlement Commis sioner (Lands), Lahore. A Constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan and his order was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed in limine. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal and it is contended on their behalf firstly, that once the lands had been confirmed in the names of the petitioners, then even if such confirmation had been obtained by fraud there was no power under the Settlement and Rehabilitation laws to cancel the said confirmations. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, vests the land permanently settled on a displaced person in that person but section 10 of the same Act gives to the Chief Settlement Commissioner power to cancel an allotment if he is satisfied that an allotment had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The provisions of the Land Settlement Act must be read as a whole and considering them as a whole, section 16 of the Act can only mean that where the land has been permanently settled in a lawful manner then the person with whom the said lawful settlement has been made, acquires vested rights therein. Fraud vitiates everything and a settlement or allotment obtained by practising fraud is not an allotment or settlement at all within the eye of law. It would be a startling proposition to suggest that one can, with impunity, reap the advantage of his own fraud. The next contention advanced is that to establish fraud or misrepresentation a more reliable and stronger kind of evidence was required. No law provides a special quantum of evidence for the establishment of fraud. While it is true that the Courts should be careful in coming to a finding of fraud and should normally satisfy themselves that the finding is based on reliable evidence, it cannot be said that any special number of witnesses or any special nature of evidence is needed to establish fraud. It is for the Court which is to decide this question to be satisfied that the evidence adduced before it is such that it can believe it. The Court which was entrusted with this task has done so and it is not for us to re‑assess that evidence or come to a different finding of our own, if there was evidence on which such a finding could be based. The last question urged is that the finding of fraud is vitiated by the admission of inadmissible evidence namely, an Electoral Roll produced from India. The Settlement authorities who are making enquiries of hearing appeals under the Act, are Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure for several purposes but it does not follow that all the provisions of the Evidence Act also necessarily apply to proceedings before them. Under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, in particular, it is the Chief Settlement Commissioner who has to be satisfied that the allotment was obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation. It is nowhere provided that such satisfaction must be based upon evidence which is strictly admissible under the Evidence Act. The certified copy of the electoral roll prepared in India was also certified by the High Commission for Pakistan in India and was thus admissible under section 78 (6) of the Evidence Act. The further endorsement made on it out of abundant caution merely affected its weight. We see no substance, therefore, in this contention either. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.