Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.490/R of 1977, decided on 13th November, 1983.

---Ss.10 & 11--Fraudulent allotment, cancellation of--Entitlement of successors--Allotment to original allottee result of fraud and mis representation--Principle "no one can pass better title than what he possesses"--Application--Persons claiming title through allottee whose allotment of land was result of fraud could not get such land--Finding of Settlement Authority that entire transaction was fraudulent, upheld in circumstances.

---Ss.10 & 11--Fraudulent transaction--Opportunity of being heard- Petitioner to be careful in watching their interest--Mere fact that formal notice was not issued, would not make material difference in view of nature of transaction--Petition dismissed in circumstances.

Ch. M.Rafiq Khan for Petitioners.

Nemo for the Respondents.

Date of hearing 26th October, 1983.

Hakim Din son of Alla-ud-Din, Gujar, resident of Kot Shera. Tehsil and District Gujranwala filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act 1958 in which he alleged that the allotment obtained by Bhooru was bogus and fraudulent. In this application, Hakim bin cited three persons as respondents i.e. Siraj Din, Bhooru and Abdur Rashid. Bhooru appeared before Settlement Commissioner and stated that Siraj Din was his uncle. He died in India, and that he had filed claim for land abandoned by his uncle in India.

Abdur Rashid respondent No.3 did not appear before the Settlement Commissioner. Proclamation was issued in the newspaper dated 30-9-1976, yet he did not turn up. Thereafter, he was proceeded ex parte. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) who was seized of the matter by his order dated 3-2-1977 held that Siraj Din did not come over to Pakistan and the allotment obtained by respondent No.3 was due to fraud and misrepresentation. He, therefore, exercising the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner, cancelled the allotment and ordered the same to be resumed and allotted to Hakim Din as informer.

Sardar Abdur Rashid and Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan have challenged the said order by means of this petition.

2. Learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner s raised two contentions. First that the petitioners were condemned unheard. They were necessary and proper party to the proceedings. Secondly, the information was laid against a dead person. Proceedings before the Settlement Authorities were as such coram non judice.

3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. They are, therefore, proceeded ex parte.

4. I have considered the submissions and gone through the impugned, order as well as the comments submitted by the Department. The very allotment obtained by Abdur Rashid respondent No.3 was the result o fraud and misrepresentation. It is an admitted principle of law that n one can pass a better title than what he possesses. The Additional Settlement Commissioner held a detailed factual enquiry and then came to the conclusion that the entire transaction fraudulent.

5. The petitioners should have been careful in watching their interest. They did not do so. The mere fact that a formal notice was not issued to them would not make material difference because even if at this stage I am to remit the case, the result will be the same.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

H. B. T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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