1990 PLP 947 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1990. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J: ‑‑The petitioners had, inter alia, obtained an allotment of 29 kanals of land against 214 Units in respect of `zaira‑maufi' land abandoned by them in India. However, under the relevant law no allotment could be obtained in lieu of such land. On the basis of the mukhbari application filed by respondent No. 2 under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 the allotment in favour of the petitioners in so far as it related to the claim in respect of `zaira‑maufi' land was cancelled and ultimately allotted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to respondent No. 2 against his unsatisfied claim vide order dated 21‑10‑1976. This order was challenged by the petitioners through a writ petition but this petition was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the allotment of the resumed land can only be made to an informant who has furnished or furnishes information about any bogus and fraudulent allotment vide section 14(IA), as inserted by Ordinance VI of 1974. In this case, it is submitted that the allotment obtained by the petitioner was neither a bogus allotment nor was obtained fraudulently. This contention was also raised before the High Court but was rejected with the following observations:‑‑ "Even if initially the petitioners had obtained allotment against `zaira‑maufi'land under some misunderstanding they must have become aware of the true position when the inspection team recorded its note and recommended the cancellation of the excess allotment. The retention of the land by them for another ten years without either surrendering it or moving the authorities concerned for its purchase was nothing but fraud. The provisions of section 10 of the Act were clearly attracted to their case". The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even if the provisions of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 were attracted to his case the effect would only be that the land was liable to be cancelled but, according to him, even then the petitioner was entitled to purchase the land so resumed and the same could be allotted to respondent No. 2 only if the allotment of the petitioners was obtained to have been obtained fraudulently or was bogus and furthermore this fraudulent and bogus allotment had come to light as a result of the information furnished by the informant. In this case, neither the allotment of the petitioners was found to be fraudulent or bogus nor did the aforesaid allotment come to light on the information furnished by respondent No.

2. On the other hand, it was already in the knowledge of the Department as a result of the scrutiny carried out by the Inspection Team when it visited the Chak on 1‑11‑1961. These submissions require consideration. Leave granted. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs.5,

000. AA./I‑114/S Leave granted.