1980 PLP 629 (SCMR)

S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1980. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal is sought from an order dated 26th November, 1978 passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Sind in a land settlement case ; whereby a writ petition calling in question the orders passed by the Settlement Authorities under sections 10, 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, cancelling an allotment in favour of the petitioner under an assumption that it was in excess of his entitlement, was dismissed. The petitioner being a claimant regarding, agricultural land was issued Q. P. R. V for 58 P. I. Units equivalent to an area of 1.27 acres of agricul tural land. A case was instituted against him on the basis of a complaint made by an informant that he had forged the Q. P. R. so as to increase the P. I. Units to 1198 (equal to 33.8 acres of agricultural land). More allega tions with regard to other records were also made, but it is not necessary to give the details thereof. Some enquiry made from the Central Record. Office prima facie supported the allegations against the petitioner. He was served with a show‑cause notice for cancellation of the bogus allotment. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner acting as Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) did not consider it necessary to take any action and discharged the notice. The informant took the matter before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) through a revision who obtained a regular report from the Central Record Office and after examina tion of the record, gave a finding of fact that the original Q. P. R. was only for 58 P. I. Units and that it was forged so as to make an increase to 1198 P. I. Units with corresponding increase in the area of the agricultural land for allotment. Accordingly, the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) was set aside and the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on ground of fraud and forgery. It was also directed that the proceedings be commenced for purpose of "prosecuting all the persons responsible for this conspiracy to cheat the Rehabilitation and Settlement Department, by committing these offences." This order was brought under challenge in the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order on 26th November, 1978. It has been held that "the allotment in question has been established as a void allotment based on fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. The order of allotment was, therefore, a nullity, being void ab initio. The question of any revision against an order based on such void order being barred by limitation did not, therefore, arise. As held in 11969 S C M R 299 fraud vitiates every thing 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." It has also been held that 'since the petitioner has not come with clean hands the Court would be reluctant to interfere in exercise of this special writ jurisdiction." Learned counsel for the petitioner realising the difficulty on account of findings of facts contended that it was based on misreading of the record, because, according to him, when the Additional Deputy Commis sioner (Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) examined the record, the forgery which was subsequently discovered by the Settlement Commis sioner (Lands) was not visible to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it is further contended, it must have been done by the informant at a later stage after the dismissal of his application by the Additional Deputy Commissioner to make a wrongful gain. He also contended that even if it be assumed that there was some forgery in the Q. P. R., the calculation said to have been made in the Q. P. R. of 58 units was not in accordance with the formula a formula the petitioner was entitled to more units. There is no force in either of these contentions. We have perused the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands). It appears that he did not examine the original Q. P. R. nor the copy thereof in possession of the petitioner was produced before him in order to rebut the allegation of the forgery. Not only this, the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) noted in his revisional order that "perusal of the Q. P. R. V revealed that its portion containing the description of the P. 1. Units, has been torn out by some one in order to conceal original entitlement of the respondent Raza Mohammad son of Pira (petitioner herein). Perusal of the Khatuni said to have been issued is available in the file which shows that the signed leaf of Khatuni in the name of some other claimant has been rubbed off with chemical substance and the interpolations about the so‑called allotment has been carried out. Further perusal of the report of the C. R. O. Lahore which was obtained in the interest of justice before issuance of show‑cause notice shows that the Q. P. R. V (F) for 58 P. 1. Units was issued in the name of respondent, but the respondent with the support and help of the lower Rehabilitation Staff had committed forgeries and had shown 1198 P. I. Units and thus obtained the allotment of 33.8 acres of land against his actual entitlement of 58 P. I. Units only. The Q. P. R. is also in torn condition and its portion which contains the description of the units has also been done away with, in order to conceal the actual position". The Settlement Commissioner offered to the learned counsel appearing for the present petitioner before him to produce the petitioner's copy of Q. P. R. V as well a M. R. III. But he failed to produce the same. The approach of the Settlement Commissioner in giving the impugned finding of fact does not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court was fully justified in repelling the argument advanced from the petitioner's side in this behalf. We also do not find any justification for reopening the question of fact on a mere surmise that the forgery has been done by the informant. The other argument raised by the learned counsel also does not merit any serious consideration. It was not urged before the High Court that even without the forgeries the petitioner would have been entitled to more units than 58 as originally shown in his Q. P. R. The learned single Judge in the High Court rightly refused to interfere in discretionary writ jurisdiction. The impugned order is unexceptionable. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.