P L D 1971 Lahore 871 (PLP)

3. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:‑ (a) Order of respondent No. 1 dated 3‑2‑1970, Annexure 'D', assuming jurisdiction in the matter under section 14 (2) of the Registration of Claims Act, is without lawful authority as section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956 has been amended by Ordinance XIII of 1964 providing that after 31‑3‑1965, the Claims Commissioner will have no power to review any order for the purpose of verifying the claim. (b) the Claims Commissioner is not competent to proceed under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act without examining the verified claim first under subsection (1) as to whether the same is based on fraud or misrepresentation. If the Claims Commissioner comes to the conclusion, after due scrutiny, that the verified claim is not genuine one, then he will lodge a complaint, in writing, under section 16 of the Act, for prosecution of the person concerned, who if found guilty under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act, may be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. After the said person has been found guilty, the Claims Commissioner may proceed against him under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act whereby any allotment, or other benefit obtained as a result of any act, which is punishable as an offence under this section, may be forfeited. (c) respondent No. 2 has no locus stand and cannot be a party in the proceedings before the Claims Commissioner which is a matter between the petitioners, who are claims to, and the State. He is not an "aggrieved person" as defined in section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956 and as such cannot be allowed to take part in the proceedings between the State and the petitioners.

4. I am afraid the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the amendment of section 7 of the Act by Ordinance XIII of 1964, inserting subsection (3) (a) in section 7 of the Act, the Claims Commissioner cannot take any action against the petitioners after 31‑3‑1965, has no substance. Section 14 of the Act has not been amended in any manner and the power of taking action for fraud or misrepresentation under this section is of a much wider import than the power of review or revision granted by section 7 of the same Act. The procedure as laid down under section 14 (1) of the Act does not amount to review of the order made final under the provisions of section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956. It only aims to find out whether a particular order has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, and if so, whether any action as provided under this provision can be taken against the person concerned or not. Action under section 14 (1) of the Act is quite independent of the action, which may or may not be taken by way of review under subsection (3) (a) of section 7 of the Act. Even after the amendment of section 7 of the Act by Ordinance XIII of 1964, action can be taken under section 14 of the Act. Reference in this respect can be made to Hafiz Azim Bakhsh v. District Judge. Lyallpur (P L D 1970 Lah. 720).

5. In order to appreciate second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reproduction of section 14 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956 may be beneficial. This section reads as follows: --‑ (1) Any person who‑ a) submits, in respect of his claim under this Act, any information which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, or (b) fraudulently conceals or misrepresents facts for the purpose of making a claim which he knows to be false, either wholly or in part, or (c) submits a claim in respect of the same property to a concerning Registering or Additional Registering Officer, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both ; and (2) The Claims Commissioner, or any other person authorized by the Central Government in this behalf may order the forfeiture of any allotment or other benefit obtained as a result of any act which is punishable as an offence under this section."

6. Subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act implies that the Claims Commissioner has first to scrutinize the verified claim in order to see that it is not based upon some fraud or misrepresentation and if he comes to the conclusion that the claim is not genuine on them under section 16 of the Act he will lodge a complaint, in writing, with the Court so that proceedings may start against the person concerned. Sub section (1) of section 14 further lays down that the person concerned if found guilty by the Court shall be liable to punish ment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 14 (1) and section 16 of the Act are to be read together for this purpose. After the person concerned has been found guilty by the Court under subsection (1) of section 14, then the Claims Commissioner under subsection (2) of section 14 can further take penal action against that person by ordering forfeiture of any allotment or other benefit obtained as a result of any act which is punishable as an offence under this section. The learned Claims Commissioner, respondent No. 1, issued notices to the petitioners, Annexure B', under sub section (2) of section 14 of the Act. An objection was taken by the petitioners with regard to Claims Commissioner's jurisdiction under this provision to proceed against them but the same was rejected by him vide his impugned order, Annexure `D' whereby he held that he had the jurisdiction to proceed against the peti tioners under subsection (2) of section 14. 1 was first of the view that mention of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act in the notice has been made inadvertently but it appears from the impugned order that the learned Claims Commissioner consciously interprets this provision as conferring jurisdiction upon him to proceed against the petitioners irrespective of the fact whether any decision has been made against them or not under sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The provision as contained in subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act is clear to mean that the learned Claims Commissioner can take action as provided in this subsection against the petitioners in case they have been found guilty under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act on his complaint, in writing, to the Court. Before that be is not competent to proceed against them under this provision. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 concedes that action under subsection (2) of section 14 can be taken only after the petitioners pre found guilty of fraud or misrepresentation under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act. He submits that the provision as contained in subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act has been wrongly mentioned in the notice as well as in the impugned order but I am afraid this does not appear to be correct in view of the observations made above. The learned Claims Commis sioner decided to assume jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act in spite of specific objection taken by the petitioners in this regard. He can proceed against them only in case they are found guilty of any offence as mentioned in subsection (1) of section 14 by the competent Court on his report in writing.

7. Respondent No. 2, Sheikh Amir Ali, is an informer in this case on whose application proceedings were started against the petitioners by respondent No.

1. He was allowed to be imp leaded as party in this writ petition by this Court subject to all just exceptions. Strong objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners about his locus stands to be a party in the matter, which is, primarily, between the claimants and the State. He submits that he is a stranger to the proceed ings and not an "aggrieved person" as defined under section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956. I do not want to deal with this matter at present as the impugned order is being quashed on other grounds as mentioned above.

8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 3‑2‑1970 as passed by respondent No. 1, is hereby quashed being illegal and without jurisdiction. There will, however, be no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted.