Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 230‑R of 1978, decided on 4th May, 1983.

‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41‑‑Cons titution of Pakistan (1973), Art. ‑199‑Land allotted and sold by fictitious person‑Cancellation by Settlement Commissioner Petitioner challenging orders of cancellation on ground that land purchased by them validly allotted against claim and had validly been sold to vendor and thereafter to then: but failing to produce evidence to show that vendor was owner and had right to sell property or he himself appeared before any of authorities for getting attested mutation or that it was he who got land allotted per sonally or through some authorised agent‑Held, vendee from an unauthorised or fictitious person could not claim a, better right than their predecessor and hence their claim on that ground cannot succeed‑Settlement Commissioner hearing vendees and thereafter coming to conclusion that neither original claimant Dot his heirs secured allotment‑Sale by claimant or his heirs, held further, not proved in circumstances.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

‑‑‑‑ Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑Finding of fact, held. cannot be challenged in High Court and in absence of any valid reasons for interference finding is to be maintained.

Moinud Din Khan for Appellant.

H. Ashraf.izim for Respondent No. 2 . .

Date of hearing : 4th May, 1983.

The petitioners challenge the order, dated 7th December, 1976 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land), whereby the land purchased by them from Jalal Din respondent No. 3 the vendee from respondent No. 2, was cancelled on the ground that the same bad been got allotted and sold by a fictitious person. , '

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Siddiq Muhammad son of Allahullah (Laloo), caste Rajput. deceased father of respondent No. 2, was claimant. His claim No. 6373 was verified by the Central Record Office but it was alleged to have been lost before being satisfied. Some land was, however, allotted against it in four villages, as under :‑=

3. Some time later, the Inspection Team referred the case under sections 10 and II of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act; 1958, to the Settlement Commissioner for a suo motu exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. He heard the vendees as well as the successor -in‑interest of the claimant (respondent No. 2) and came to the conclu sion that the land in question was not got allotted by respondent No. 2 but instead by some fictitious persons. In that view of the matter, he cancelled all the allotments and further directed that the allotment in village Chodho Khudayar be allotted in the name of Siddiq Muhammad son of Allahullah, subject to his entitlement.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the land purchased by the petitioners had been validly allotted against the same claim of Siddiq Muhammad son of Allahullah and had validly been sold to respondent No. 3 and, thereafter, to the petitioners, the cancellation of the same and its subsequent allotment to the same claimant Siddiq Muhammad was not valid. The contention, however, is neither support ed from the record nor is it even otherwise sustainable.

5. It may be noted that the petitioners had to show not only that they were bona fide purchasers for value, but that the vendor was the owner and had a right to sell the property. In the case in hand, the sale is alleged to have been made originally by respondent No. 2, a son of the right‑holder to respondent No. 3 and by him, thereafter, to the present petitioners. There was, however, no evidence produced that the' respondent No. 2 had sold the property or he himself appeared before any of the authorities for getting attested the mutation. It is also no proved that it is he who got the land allotted personally or through a authorised agent. Consequently, the vendees from an unauthorised o fictitious person could not claim a better right than their predecessor an hence their claim on that ground cannot succeed.

6. In any case, the Settlement Commissioner had heard the vendees and, thereafter, came to the conclusion that neither the original claimant nor his heirs secured the allotment. In this view of the matter, the sale by the claimants or his heirs was not proved. Further, the finding is of a fact and cannot ordinarily be challenged in this Court. Thus, in the absence of any valid reasons for interference, the finding is to be maintained.

For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with costs.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.