1982 PLP 1061 (CLC)

(2) That petitioners 1 to 3 being bona fide purchasers for value under a registered sale‑deed their interest could not be hurt by passing of the impugned order. (3) That the matter haying been remanded to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sanghar the Court at Lahore had no jurisdiction to decide it. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Asbraf Umrani, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, Advocate for respondent No.

1. With regard to the contention that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were not heard it is very clear from the record that in the proceedings before. the Settlement Authorities only Allahdino Baloch petitioner No. 1 was shown as the purchaser of land from Shafaat Ahmad. In this connection the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sanghar, dated 11‑12‑1972 and the order of Settlement Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad dated 7‑3‑1974 mention only Allahdino Baloch, as the purchaser of the land. With regard to petitioner. No. 4, the case of the petitioners is that he was general attorney of Shafaat Ahmad who had executed the sale‑deed on behalf of claimant Shafaat Ahmad. Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has pointed out that in para. I of the petition it is shown that Muhammad Ali Naqvi son of Syed Abdus Sattar was the general attorney of claimant Shafaat Ahmad; whereas in the sale deed the name of the attorney, is shown as Qazi Muhammad Ali, son of Qazi Abdul Ghaffar. Moreover, petitioner No. 4 having only acted as attorney of Shafaat Ahmed who was admittedly a party before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore having the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner the question of his being given a hearing did not arise. With regard to contentions Nos. 2 and 3, the power of the Chief Settle ment Commissioner to cancel allotment is provided in section 10 of the Act which reads as under: '`Section

10. Power of Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel allot ment.‑If the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that an allot ment has been obtained by any person by means of fraud or false repre sentation then without prejudice to any other penalty to which such person may be liable, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may pass an order cancelling the allotment, or reducing the area of the land allotted or such other order as he may deem fit." Section I1 of the Act gives the Chief Settlement Commissioner power to cancel or terminate allotment or to amend or vary the terms of allotment. It is clear from the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sind, Hyderabad dated 7‑3‑1974 that in the statement of Shafaat Ahmed it had been made very clear by him that he had already utilised his claim at Pak pattan. The claim admittedly was examined by the learned Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore who was also having the powers of Chief Settle ment Commissioner and in the impugned order there is such mention in paragraph 2 as under:‑ "In response to show‑cause notice Shafaat Ahmed, claimant/respondent appeared and stated that in lieu of the area abandoned by him in village, Burewala Syedan, Tehsil and District Hissan he had secured allotment of land equivalent to 1355 P. I. Units in village Shafi, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, Tal‑Sbamali Pati Gadi, Tehsil Jampura, District D. G. Khan in accordance with his rights. He denied to have transferred his claim to Sind or securing of allotment in Chak No. 42‑Jamrao, Tehsil Sinjhoro, District Sanghar. He added that in connection with similar proceedings pending in the Court of Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad he had appeared and supplied photograph of the original right‑holder to the Court, but no decision had been given by the Court." The learned Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his powers as the Chief Settlement Commissioner was satisfied that as the original claimant had secured allotment of land in accordance with his rights in the Province of the Punjab and had never got transferred his claim, or secured allotment of land in Chak No. 42, Jamrao Taluka Sinjhoro, District Sanghar, therefore the allotment of land in Sind had been secured by means of fraud and e without his knowledge. He therefore directed the cancellation of the allotment of land in Deh 42 Jamrao or from anywhere else against Claim No. 1038, in exercise of his powers as the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and as the proceedings were already pending on the fit‑. of the Settlement Commissioner, Sind therefore a copy of his order was sent to him for further necessary action. Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has relied upon the decision of the Lahore High Court in Din Muhammad and 3 others v. Boota and another (P L D 1972 Lah. 709) in which it was inter alia observed as under:‑ "It is a matter of common knowledge that many innocent persons have been the victim of the fraudulent allotments and their confirm ation. They purchased the property on the basis of entries in R. L.

2. It is presumed in law that all official acts are duly done. If, therefore, a person is shown in R. L. 2 maintained by the Department it carries with it a presumption that the allotment has been made to him duly and properly. In such cases it is just and proper that not only that it should be found out that a subsequent allotment was made on a claim which had already been satisfied, or that somebody had obtained it fraudulently, but that it should also be found as to how that fraud was committed, and whether any of the Officer or official of the Department was a party to the fraudulent transaction. In such a case if a bona fide purchaser is to suffer on account of such entries and is to lose the property for which he had paid a valuable consideration, there is no reason why the officials of the Department without whose connivance the fraud would not have been committed, should not be held responsible and dealt with. Cheating is a cognizable offence and if a transaction is cancelled under section 10 of the Land Settlement Act, there is no reason why the miscreants should not be brought to book under the law of the land." It is therefore argued by him that whatever the remedy of the bona fide purchasers for value it could be only against the officers and officials responsible for permitting the fraud, but on that account the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel a fraudulent allotment is not taken away. Section 16 of the Act vests the land permanently settled on a displaced person in that person but section 10 of the same Act gives power to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel an allotment if he is satisfied that an allotment has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. In Mst. Pani and another v. Mian A. M. Syed and others (1969 S C M R 299), a decision of the Supreme Court it was observed that no law provides substantial quantum of evidence for establishment of fraud, and 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. In that decision it was further observed as under "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 has 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 question whether finding of fraud is vitiated by admission of in admissible evidence was also considered and it was observed as under:‑ "The Settlement Authorities who are making enquiries or 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 the proceedings before them. Under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, in particular, it is the Chief Settlement Commissioner who is to be satisfied that the allotment was obtained by, fraud or misrepresentation. It is nowhere provided that such satisfaction must be based upon evidence which is strictly admissible under the Evidence Act." The learned Chief Settlement Commissioner had enough evidence to be satisfied about the fraud in the allotment of the land in the Province of Sind inasmuch as the Settlement Authorities dealing with entitlement certificates and authorities dealing with allotment of land in the Punjab could well C settle the identity of Shafaat Ahmed Khan and about the matter whether his claim was finally settled in the Province of the Punjab, and once the aforesaid fact was established the allotment on the basis of the same claim in a different province was per se fraudulent. With regard to contention No. 3, the Chief Settlement Commissioner having special jurisdiction given to him under sections 10 and 1.1. of the Act could take action specially when an application was filed before him by respon dent No. 1 as an informer and being the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the Province of Sind also could‑ well issue the directive which he did in the impugned order. In view of the reasons given, I find no weight in this petition which is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.