1994 PLP 1479 (CLC)

7. Brief facts of the case are that the land as stated above was cancelled on account of fraud and misrepresentation and on the present record it is not ascertainable what was the total area cancelled from the name of the original allottee. Report dated 2nd February, 1987 has been filed in this case by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Jhang. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on Mutation No. 3908 whereby the original allottee Fazal Muhammad sold land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marlas, 1 Kanal 12 Marlas, 13 Kanals 8 Marlas, 7 Kanals 15 Marlas in favour of one Muhammad Sultan. Thereafter the latter sold 1 Kanal 10 Marlas in favour of one Nabi Bakhsh from whom the present petitioners claimed title in respect of area measuring 15 Marlas by virtue of sale deed dated 22nd December, 1969. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that the area as to the two disputed plots has been sold in favour of the petitioners and therefore, it could not have been allotted or auctioned in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to

4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioners are not the vendee of the disputed property and that they were claiming the property in question on the basis of construction and their claim was rejected by detailed order dated 23‑2‑1986 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/ D.S.C., Jhang. The following is the operative part of the order of the D.S.C.: "It is evident that the petitioners do not hold any valid title on the land which is the subject of the case. It is, therefore, difficult to accept their request and hand over the possession of land to them. The application submitted by them is, therefore, rejected. They, if so advised, may seek their remedy before a Civil Court." While rejecting the application of the petitioners the learned D.S.C. came to the conclusion that the allotment of Nabi Bakhsh was found bogus and cancelled in the year 1970 as a result of which the title of the petitioners also became non‑existent. The land in question was treated as urban property and was disposed of in the shape of two plots bearing Nos. 97‑S and 98‑S respectively. Plot No. 97‑S was allotted in the name of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Aslam jointly on 30‑1‑1978 whereas Plot No. 98‑S was auctioned in the name of Muhammad Din. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ashraf have since paid the price of land on 14‑2‑1980 and a Transfer Deed has been issued in their favour. The case of Muhammad Din is still pending in this office".

4. After the perusal of the report it has come out that the petitioners had submitted application for the allotment of the disputed plots under the scheme for the Management and Disposal of Residual Urban Properties and these forms were rejected on 30‑10‑1978 after hearing.

5. From the order of D.S.C. referred to above and the report it is manifestly clear that the petitioners had already submitted applications for the allotments of the plots under the scheme but this request was rejected on 30‑10.1978 and this order became final against them because they did not file any appeal or revision petition assailing this order. The learned counsel .for the petitioners has not questioned the order dated 8‑8‑1970 by which the land was cancelled from the name of original allottee by the Settlement Commissioner on account of fraud and misrepresentation and even this order has not been assailed and became final as against the petitioners.

6. There is another aspect of the case namely that the original allottee was in possession of various Khasra numbers and it cannot be said that the property in dispute allegedly sold in favour of the petitioners by the successors of the original allottee is the same 1s is disputed property namely the area of Plots Nos.97 and

98. I have examined the mutations relied upon by the petitioners and other documents and it is not possible to arrive at such a conclusion. Plot No.97 was allotted on 30‑1‑1978 by the Administrator while the other Plot No. 98 was sanctioned on 22‑1‑1979 and these orders remained unchallenged for a long time. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 11‑1‑1987, 17 years after the original order dated 8‑8‑1970 cancelling the allotment from the name of original allottee and after about 14 years when the property was transferred in favour of the respondents. No reasonable explanation has been shown for such an inordinate delay. According to para. 8 of the writ petition the petitioners are claiming the transfer of the plots by virtue of notification dated 3‑1‑1977 on the basis of their possession. Whatever may be the case their request for transfer of the disputed plot has been fully considered and rejected by D.S.C.'s order dated 23‑2‑1986 after hearing the petitioners. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel that they were not heard by the Settlement Commissioner cancelling the allotment from the name of the original allottee is of no significance on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7. I have heard the petitioners who have failed to produce any evidence to show that the order dated 8‑8‑1970 was nullity‑and that the land could not have been cancelled on account of fraud and misrepresentation. This being the case the petitioners cannot succeed merely on a technicality and that too after 22 years.

8. Looked from any angle, the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference in the allotment/auction of respondents 2 to

4. In view of the above there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed without any order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑188/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.