MUHAMMAD AFZAL NASIR versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MBR J-V
Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 41 constitution of Pakistan and it were allotted in favor of the seller from whom the applicants had purchased the land. The applicants' complaint was that the authorities thereafter made the allotment. Could not cancel the justification that all previous transactions were fraudulent and fraudulent and neither party could be allowed to take advantage of it. There can be no rationale or basis for discrimination between the High Court, the Commonwealth Court, or the powers conferred on a special or limited jurisdictional tribunal to investigate fraud cases, whatever the case may be, There will be an effect of fraud. The duty to remove the homogeneity and its effect was on the authority whose exercise of the allotment in favor of the shopkeeper as it was not based on fraudulent authority in the jurisdiction which was declared binding on the petitioner. The landlord was a claimant who was entitled to the protection of Article 41 of the Transferred Property Act, 188, because it was not allowed to buy the land from the allottee. Under the law, when the title of the shopkeeper was fraudulent and in such cases the shopkeeper has to survive or accordingly the legal status of the property being transferred to the vendor is determined as the transfer only steps in the shoes of the transfer. Was deferred so the defective title could not become a perfect title because it was further transferred when the Settlement Officers found out that under Section 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, by forgery. When the land was acquired, they canceled the allotment of the land. ??????
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
