1984 PLP 961 (MLD)

(4) Order of 'allocation was passed because of misrepresentation of facts as allotment was presumed because of reference from Mukhtiarkar of Mirpur Sakro, but he was not the competent authority for allotment of S.No.99, Deh Kotoraro. I have perused the records and proceedings of this case, which was sent for from the following authority.

9. I find the original proposal letter is contained in these pro ceedings. The same bears the signature of the Mukhtiarkar at the end. It has 4 cuttings at different places but there is a rewriting against every cutting and the most material rewritings in respect of Deh Kotoraro and S.No.99 also bear the initials. The initials appear to be of the same person who has signed at the end of the proposal. It appears to me that the initial proposal was drawn for allotment of same land at Khadeji to the petitioner but it was later on changed to S.No.99 of Deh Kotoraro, District Thatta. The Settlement Commissioner appears to have ignored the initials of the allotting authority over the two writings and, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner was misled to consider the proposal as highly doubtful. In fact the initials have removed the doubt which could be legitimately entertained if the initials were not there. The presence of this proposal in this form on the old file itself is a clear proof that the proposal as such did exist at that time. In any case the Settlement Commissioner should have weighed all the documents together and then he could have decided the effect of this document. Basic mistake committed by the Settlement Commissioner is that having considered this proposal of allotment as the basic document and having found some suspicions about it, which were really unfounded, he has condemned every other document connected with the allotment of S.No.99 Deh Kotoraro and reached a perverse decision.

10. The Perchi Taqseem Khatauni, dated 26-1-1959, gives a clear support to the proposal letter above referred and clearly proves that the proposal was the same which was unnecessarily described as suspicious by the Settlement Commissioner. This Perchi is properly signed and is found in the record and mere circumstance that this Perchi was not in the form which was prescribed for I.R.IV Scheme, but it was in the form which is prescribed under supplementary Rural Scheme is not destructive of its effect The form of Perchi Taqseem Khatauni was to be supplied and filled by the Rehabilitation Authorities and it is not the choice of the allottee, therefore, petitioner could not be punished if a different form of Perchi Taqseem Khatauni was used by Mukhtiarkar Thatta. Moreover, the use of the form of supplementary rural scheme should have led the Settlement Commissioner to the conclusion that the Rehabilitation Authorities were intending to confirm the temporary allotment into a semi-permanent allotment. I am clearly of the view that the authority and genuineness of Perchi Taqseem Khatauni, dated 26-1-1959 admitted of no doubt of whatsoever nature about the allotment of S. No. 99 Deh Kotoraro to the petitioner by the competent authority namely the Mukhtiarkar Thatta. This Khatauni is duly signed by 3 officers and every one of the entries is properly made and it is found contained in the original records and hence this document should have been treated as the basic document of allotment.

11. The Settlement Commissioner has found another fault with this Khatauni, dated 26-1-1959 that a larger area of 23.18 Acres has been allotted which was more than the entitlement of this petitioner. This could hardly be a ground for ignoring this Khatauni. In one column of this Khatauni 9.4 Acres is shown as the entitlement which would probably be relevant for the I.R.IV Scheme. But there is a note in detail written in the body of this Khatauni presumbly by the Mukhtiarkar which takes note of the office suggestion to the effect that 18.2 Acres was the entitlement but 23.18 Acres have been proposed which is more than the entitlement. But the note concludes the matter by saying that since this is one compact no which cannot be partitioned, therefore, he allowed it with reluctance. This note is sufficient to show that the Mukhtiarkar was conscious of the excess allotment but he allowed it and thus objection cannot really be taken to the same. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in 1958-59 there was no controversy about the allotment and mere irregularity in allowing an excess area cannot lead to the conclusion that the whole allotment was illegal or void. More omission to sign the note on this Khatauni does not detract anything from the value of this Khatuni when it is found that it is signed at the end by three officers, one of them was the competent authority viz. Mukhtiarkar, Thatta and this Khatauni had been duly filed in by the authorities and all the entries clearly showed the intention of the Rehabilitation Authorities that they were allotting S.No.99, Deh Koturaro to Nazar Ali Beg on quasi-permanent or interim basis. Moreover, the objection, that more area was allotted than was the entitlement of Nazar Ali Beg, finds no answer in original form I.R.IV issued by Central Record Office, Lahore which is on page 17 of File-A sent to this Court by Rehabilitation Authorities at Thatta. This form I.R.IV bearing No.677/7987 issued, on 28-2-1958 shows that 27.9 Acres was the area claimed/ verified in favour of Nazar Ali Beg. Moreover, we have the statement of the petitioner contained in para. 2 of the petition of the petitioner that his claim was verified in 1956 and he was issued entitlement certificate No.677/7987, dated 28-2-1958, and this position is admitted even by respondent No.1 in his counter-affidavit, dated 21-8-1976, in para.4. Therefore, the objection that more land was allotted to petitioner than his entitlement under I.R.IV is really of a technical nature and not substantial and is the result of omission by the Settlement Commissioner of the fact of entitlement of 27.9 Acres of the petitioner shown in original Form I.R.IV .

12. Most glaring mistake has been committed by Settlement Commis sioner in reaching the conclusion that Q.P.R.V. and Perchi Taqseem Khatauni for allotment of S. No.99 to the petitioner under Settlement Rural Scheme was not available and further that there wits no allotment shown in R.L.II Register. I have myself seen, in the presence of the two learned counsels, that R.L.II Register, sent to this Court in original by Thatta authorities at page 6 does contain the entries of allotment of S.No.99, measuring 23.18 Acres in Deft Kotoraro District Thatta in the name of Nazar Ali Beg and in one column Q.P.R.V. Case No.65 is also mentioned. In fact the measurement of plot is mentioned at 4 places on this page and tit the end of this page 3 signatures of different persons appear and the central signature appears to be of Mukhtiarkar and it bears, date 6-7-1960. Even a note is contained on this page to the effect that this area was allotted to the claimant tinder I.R. IV but it has been converted to Q.P.R.V. on 9-1-1960 as per statement of Mirza (illegible) Ali Beg, attorney of the claimant. This note appears to be initialled by some one. In the presence of this noting and the entries in the original R.L. It Register of Thatta, there is no doubt left at all that the land was converted by competent authorities at Thatta under Q.P.R.V. and the relevant entries in the register were made on 6-7-1960. In the face of this register the Settlement Commissioner had absolutely no justification to pass the impugned order which appears to be based on mere suspicions and is against the existing records. I have seen that there are similar signatures on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 of said R.L.II Register and the entries in favour of other allottees of other land have been made in the same manner and style as made in favour of the petitioner of at page 6 and I have no doubt in my mind that this is an old register which is torn et many places and entries made in favour of the petitioner were genuine. This R.L. II Register, therefore, concludes the whole matter as even the Settlement Commis sioner has described the R.L. II Register as the basic record. Therefore, entries in favour of petitioner having been found in the basic record prepared in 1960, the allotment of the petitioner could not be questioned or disturbed in 1967.

13. Then again the finding by Settlement Commissioner that there was no record available that Mukhtiarkar, Thatta had issued any Parchi Taqseem Khatauni or allotment for the disputed land under M.L.R. 89 is again belied by the original record in the file No. R-2/R-4 sent by the authorities at Thatla to this Court. It contains an order, dated 18-11-1961 which is signed for Deputy Commissioner, Thatta and the same shows that according to M.R.5/A the petitioner was entitled to retain 15.96 P.I. Units. It mentions the disputed plot as the one alotted to the petitioner against 562 units and the annexure with this letter shows that this land was being retained by the petitioner and not surrendered to the Government as excess area, Then again in the same file there is a Parchi Taqseem Khatauni which bears the signature of Mukhtiarkar and A.R. C, 'there is a certified true copy of Parchi Taqseem Khatauni which is issued by the A.S.C. Thatta and which bears the signature of A.R.C., Mirpur Sakro which shows that the petitioner had retained the area of 23.18 Acres in Deh Kotoraro. However, more important is the allocation of entitlement order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta referred to by me above, dated 18-11-1961 which was passed under M.L.R. 89 by Deputy Commissioner, Thatta and the same shows that the petitioner had retained the disputed land with him. In the presence of this allocation order no further allotment by Mukhtiarkar of Thatta was needed as the Mukhtiarkar of Thatta had already noted on 8-3-1960 that the petitioner wanted to obtain the disputed land with himself under quasi-permanent settlement scheme.

14. I may note at this stage that the respondent's counsel had challenged the petitioner to produce Form M.R.V-A. The same was produced by the petitioner's counsel on 27-9-1984 and the original was seen and returned to the petitioner but a photostat was retained. Same shows that the Central Record Office had issued entitlement certificate to the petitioner for 27.15 Acres equal to 15.96 P.I. Us. while the previous P.I. Us. was mentioned as 18.19 and the difference in the present and previous P.I. Us. was shown as 233 P.I. Us. The same certificate bore a date of 28-9-1961 and it is, therefore, clear that the entitlement certificate issued to the petitioner under M.L.R. 89 could not be challenged. The same appears to have been made basis in the allocation order made by the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta on 16-11-1961. The above referred entitlement certificate in Form M.R.V. is titled as Appendix 'E' and the letter "A" is added against the word "E" and it is stated that this is the Form M.R.V.A. which was referred in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta.

15. The finding of the Settlement Commissioner that the allotment of the petitioner had been presumed merely because of a reference from Mukhtiarkar, Mirpur Sakro and, therefore, allocation order had been issued by Deputy Commissioner, Thatta because of misrepresentation of facts by petitioner, appears to be completely unfounded arid is completely belied by the original records. The original records establish beyond doubt that the land in question was first proposed under I. R .IV for allotment to the petitioner and then Khatauni was issued in his favour on 26-1-1959 but it was on the form of quasi-permanent basis under Rural Settlement Scheme and that the petitioner's attorney made a statement before Mukhtiarkar Thatta on 9-I-1960 desiring that the disputed land may be transferred to him and entered against his Q.P.R.V.No.24089/886 in Thatta. The Mukhliarkar, Thatta has appended his signature to this statement which is present in the original file. The original file also contains the letter of 8th March, 1960 by Mukhtiar kar, Thatta to Mirpur Sakro where the Mukhtiarkar, Thatta has shown that the land of the petitioner at Thatta be adjusted in the Q.P.R.V. Form of the petitioner. This letter clearly shows that the A.R.C. Thatta has accepted the request of the petitioner that transfer of the property be made to hits on quasi-permanent basis and it was thereafter that the petitioner was asked to pay the Rehabilitation fee and he has paid the Rehabilitation fee and these documents are also in the original records. Thereafter, even the R.L II Register shows that the A.R.C. has signed the entries of allotment of the disputed land in the R.L.II Register and has explained the allotment and in the face of all these documents which are contained in the original record." it is completely incomprehensive as to how the Settlement Commissioner had come to the conclusion that there wits no allotment in favour of the petitioner. I find that the Settlement. Commissioner has assumed that the allocation order had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of misrepresentations and, therefore, there is no challenge to the factum of the allocation order having been passed by the Deputy Commissioner:

16. Since I have found that there were no misrepresentations made by the petitioner and in fact the allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner on quasi-permanent basis, therefore, the allocation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under M.L.R. 89 had completely validated the order of allotment in favour of the petitioner and this position has been finalized by 1961. Thereafter, no land was available for allotment to any other person in 1967 and hence allotment of the disputed land by Settlement Authorities at Karachi in favour of the respondent No. 1 was absolutely illegal and uncalled for. On this basis even the sale of the land in question by respondent No. 1 to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 made on 15-10-1975 was again void and of no effect as the respondent No.1 had no right or authority to pass any title to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 because the allotment of respondent No.1 was in itself without any lawful authority. 15-A. Mr. Akhtar Mahmoud, counsel for the respondent, has submissions that the very basis of the allotment, namely, the proposal was wrong but I have seen above that the proposal was duly initialled and, 'therefore, merely the fact that there are certain scorings in the proposal would not make the same as illegal particularly as the most important scorings have been rewritten and initialled. 16-B. Thereafter, Mr. Akhtar Mahmood submitted that the allotment under I.R. IV was not an allotment under a scheme supplementary to Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme as defined in para. 2(1)(b) on M.L.R.

89. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh's answer was that the allotment under I.R.IV had been converted into Q.P.R.V. on 9-1-1960 and that the same was available oil page 25 of file "A" of the record of Thatta. This submission appears to be correct as there is record available to show that on 9-1-1960 the allotment had in fact been converted into a quasi-permanent allotment and the same is duly entered in the R.L. 2 register which even according to the petitioner's counsel is the most important document in respect of the allotments and even the respondent Settlement Commissioner has treated the R.L.2 register as most important document. In fact the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.10 per hundred P.I. Units for Survey No.99 on 29-4-1960 by the Mukhtiarkar, Thatta, where it was clearly stated that the petitioner had been allotted 23.18 acres of land equal to 582 P.I. Units in satisfaction of his claim. It is, therefore, apparent that the allotment in favour of the petitioner had not remained merely under Scheme I.R. IV, but had been converted into Q.P.R,V. I also find that on 16-5-1960 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.56, 4 annas in the sub-treasury at Thatta as Rehabilitation fee for 562 P.I. units. It is therefore apparent that the petitioner duly paid the Rehabilitation fee.

17. In rule 7 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules, 1959, it is provided that a displaced person to whom any land has been allotted under a scheme shall, subject to the proviso to subsection (3) of section 15, be deemed to have been permanently settled on the land so allotted to him w.e.f. 24-12-1961, or the date of final confirmation of the allotment whichever is later. Provided (a) that the allottee has paid settlement fee as required by rule 10(b) (is not relevant as it relates to mortgage) (c) the permanent settlement shall be made only to the extent of the rights or interest abandoned by the evacuee and the right or interest of the non-evacuee in the land shall not be affected. Therefore, under this rule the petitioner was entitled to be permanently settled on the land as his allotment under I.R.IV had been converted into Q.P.R-V. and thereafter he was directed to pay the settlement fee and he did actually pay the settlement fee and thereafter his allotment became permanent.

18. There is a provision for permanent settlement of claimants who are allotted land in accordance with the schemes prepared under section 14 of D.P. (LS) Act of 1958, and the allotment is on the basis of the entitlement as determined under the said Act. Under subsection (3) of section 15 a displaced person to whom any land has been allotted by a rehabilitation authority, before the commencement of the said act under a scheme as defined in clause (vii) of section 2 or by a settlement authority under subsection (1), shall be settled permanently on that land in such a mariner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government. There is however a proviso to section 15 that ~ no order of permanent settlement shall be passed in cases where (a) (not relevant) (b) (not. relevant) (c) the land has been allotted provisionally on the basis of inconclusive data. Therefore, even according to the section 15 the petitioner was entitled to be permanently settled on this land as his I.R.IV allotment, which could initially be said to be a provisional allotment did not remain so and had been in fact converted into Q.P.R.-V in 1960 and Rehabilitation fee had been obtained from the petitioner, therefore, he was permanently settled on land w.e.f. 16-5-1960 and hence he could not be deprived of this allotment. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh referred to 1963 C L C 255 where it was observed that subsequent allotment cannot be made unless previous allotment is cancelled. Even in 1975 S C M R 173 it was held that fresh allotment could not have been made unless previous allotment was cancelled.

19. Mr. Akhtar Mahmood has on the other hand submitted that a settlement means a settlement in accordance with law and not a settlement obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. He referred to 1971 S C M R 339(340). He also referred to P L D 1970 Lah. 780 where it was held that allotment of land in excess of entitlement cannot be made subject to all permanent settlement. However, in this case before me no fraud or misrepresentation made by the petitioner, is shown or established at all. In fact from the very beginning the case of the petitioner is found being discussed by the settlement authorities in a clear manner and there is no misrepresentation which appears to have been made by the petitioner. In fact the only difficulty in respect of the I. R. IV entitlement of the petitioner was that he was entitled to only 9.04 Acres while the allotment which was made to him of Survey No. 99 was 23 Acres and 18 Ghuntas. But this position was clearly known to the authorities and they have dealt with this aspect of the case and they appear to have condoned this deficiency for the reason that it was a compact block. The reason may be wrong or right but the settlement authorities appeared to be conscious of the position and, therefore, no misrepresentation could be said to have been made by the petitioner. Even the deficiency, if any, in respect of the I . R. IV allotment has been more than met with Parchi Taqseem Khatauni is issued to the petitioner by the Rehabili tation Mukhtiarkar, Thatta on 26-1-1959 and when entitlement certificate under Q.P.R.-V was issued to the petitioner by the Central Record office, Lahore, on 12-12-1959 and finally when the petitioner got his allotment changed. into Q.P.R.-V and Paid the Rehabilitation fee and on the day that the entry in RL-2 register was made in-favour of the petitioner on 6-7-1960. He had the entitlement in his favour for 1778 P.I.units on 12-12-1959.

20. Mr. Akhtar Mahmood had submitted that findings of fact by the Tribunal are immune from scrutiny in writ petition if they are sub stantiated on record and that even if two views are possible the view of the Tribunal should be maintained. He submitted that High Court should not interfere unless it considers that the decision of the tribunal is manifestly wrong. He relied upon P L D 1974 S C 139 (142) and P L D 1976 S C 214(222) in this regard. I humbly follow the views of the Supreme Court but these two decisions are not applicable in this case before me because the Settlement Commissioner's Order is vitiated on account of the omission in not finding the authentication of the Mukhtiar kar, Thatta, in R.L. 2 register. The R.L. 2 register entry is duly authenticated and the same should have been relied upon by the Settlement Commissioner. In Net the Settlement Commissioner has merely proceeded on the basis of suspicions and doubts and has failed to correctly apply his mind to the authenticated documents existing on record which cannot be denied by anyone and, therefore, the judgment of the Settlement Commissioner is without lawful authority.

21. Mr. Akhtar Mahmuod had also submitted that on the introduction of M.L.Rs. 89 and 91 all the allotments which had been made earlier had been made in effective and, therefore, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on or before 7-6-1960 had become ineffective oil 23-8-1961. In this respect his further argument was that Deputy Commis sioner, Thatta on 18-11-1961 had no power to issue the order allowing the petitioner to retain 95.5 Acres equivalent to 1596 P.I. units which included the disputed land as the area of Deh Kotoraro had been taken away from Taluka Thatta and had been transferred to Karachi Federal Area w.e.f. 1-11-1960. In the first instance this objection is not open to the respondent because the impugned order of the Settlement Commis sioner, dated 23-9-1975 assumes that the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta had the power to issue the entitlement certificate on l8-11-1961 and the Settlement Commissioner disregarded the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta, dated 18-11-1961 merely on the basis that the said letter was based on misrepresentation and that there was no actual allotment issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this objection is misplaced on the ground taken by the respondent's counsel. I have found that there was alt order of actual allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, there was no misrepresentation made by the petitioner and hence the allocation order of 18-11-1961 was quite in order.

22. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta in his order, dated 18-11-1961 had himself taken note of the position that Deh Kotoraro of Taluka Thatta has since been transferred to Karachi Federal Area and yet he has passed the allocation order in favour of the petitioner which shows that the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta in spite of being conscious of the transfer of Deli Kotoraro' from Thatta to Karachi was' clearly of the view that he could make an allocation in respect of that area. Moreover, the said Deputy Commissioner was competent to make the said allocation as the petitioner had an area of 62.25 Acres of land in Taluka Mirpur Sakro equal to 1,253 P.I. units and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Thalia, could make the allocation, that he did, because Mirpur Sakro was admittedly within his jurisdiction on 18-11-1961. Further, I find that in P.O.IX of 1961 called the West Pakistan Administration (Merger of the Federal Territory of Karachi) Order, 1961, dated 29-6-1961 the Federal territory of Karachi hart become a part of West Pakistan and had been given effect from 1-7-1961. Under Article 5 of the said order laws applicable to Karachi Federal territory had continued to remain applicable and all schemes had also continued. Article 10(1) of the same order the Administrator of Karachi and Collector of Karachi were designated as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, Karachi. More relevant is article 10(2) of the said Order IX of 1961 according to which every person exercising power or dis charging functions under laws referred to in Article 5 in the specified territory (Federal Territory of Karachi) immediately before the appointed date, shall as from that date continue to exercise such powers or discharge such functions unless tiny such law is altered, repealed or amended etc. and in the exercise of such power and discharge of such functions every such person shall be subject to the control of the Government of West Pakistan and the supervision and directions of the appropriate; Head of the attached Department under that Government or of such other officer or authority as the Government made in this behalf. Therefore, the persons who were exercising functions in respect of these areas continued to exercise those powers. Even according to Article 4 of P.O.25 of 1960 namely Karachi (Federal 'territory) Order, 1960, dated 11-1-1960 which came into effect on 11-2-1960 transferring Deh Kotoraro from Thatta to Karachi, a provision had been made that until other provision is made by competent authority all laws, in force in the villages referred to in Sub-clause (a) arid the districts named in subsection (b) of Article 2, shall continue in force, teeing construed with all necessary adaptations. It, therefore, appears to me that the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta had the authority of making the allocation order, dated 18-11-1961 in respect of the land which had been allotted to the petitioner in Deh Kotoraro. That authority had been presumed in the impugned order and hence the same is not open to challenge in this petition.

23. Mr. Akhtar Mahmood had also made a feeble attempt to submit that the allocation order of Deputy Commissioner, Thatta, dated 18-11-1961 was not the order of the Deputy Commissioner and hence the same was of no consequence. Ills attack was basically directed on the ground that someone had signed for the Deputy Commissioner, Thalia. It is not possible for me tit this stage to give tiny finding in respect of the said submission because the entire record is not before me as it starts only from page 20 namely from the allocation order itself and, therefore, one cannot say whether in fact the Deputy Commis sioner had not passed any order to that effect. I can only 'say that this objection by the learned counsel for the respondent is not justified at this stage because the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner favour of the respondents assumed that the Deputy Commissioner, in fact Thatta had in fact passed an allocation order on 18-11-1961 and in fact even from the records sent by the office of the Deputy Commissioner this order is found on the record and, therefore, proceeding on the basis of the principle that all official acts are presumed to have been done in the prescribed manner, I will presume that the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta had in fact passed an allocation order in favour of the petitioner.

24. Mr. Hassan A. Shaikh had relied upon law notes 1957 (W.P.) Karachi 3 where a division bench of this Court had field that after MR-V was issued to the claimants they were entitled to get their entitlement adjusted out of the temporary allotments and their lands. It was further held by the same division bench that if an order under M:L.R. 89 had been made by competent authority then it was not open to this Court to set aside that order because any order purported to have been passed under M . L. R . 89 is not open ' to challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The division bench had relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.K-10, K-11, of 1962, decided on 11th March, 1964, where the Supreme Court had observed as under:- It appears to us that the Martial Law Regulation 89, as amended by Martial Law Regulation 93 altogether cuts the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of acts done or purported to be done in exercise of the power under any Martial Law Regulation. The impugned order having been passed by Mr.A. Rauf Chaudhry in exercise of the power' granted to him by Martial Law Regulation No.89 is thus immune from attack or challenged in a Court of law.''

25. Respectfully following the view of the Supreme Court and our own division bench I am of the view that the order of allocation made by Deputy Commissioner, Thatta on 18-11-1961 was not open to challenge and the same should have been followed by the Settlement Commissioner but the Settlement Commissioner having not done so his order was vitiated by that illegality and the same was, therefore, without lawful authority.

26. The net result of the above discussion is that the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner in respect of 23.18 Acres o land in Deft Kotoraro had continued to remain in force and it was not legally cancelled by airy authority and, therefore, the said land could not have been allotted in favour of respondent No.1 on 7-9-1967/9-1-1968 and that the order of the Settlement, Commissioner, dated 1-9-1975 is without lawful authority and further that the transfer of the disputed land by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on 15-10-1975 did not confer any rights upon respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as the respondent No.1 had not been legally conferred any rights in respect of the said land and I further direct that the possession of the petitioner dating back from 26- 1-1979 in respect of the said land shall not be disturbed. The petition, therefore was allowed on 2-10-1984 and these are the reasons for the same. M.Y.H. Petition allowed.