Find a Lawyer

-- Ss. 10 & 11-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 -Mukhbari application-Cancellation of allotment of land-Mukhbari application seeking cancellation of land of original transferee on ground that it was obtained fictitiously on a bogus claim -Person who purchased land from original transferee, through registered sale-deed, and whose name also appearing in revenue record, neither impleaded as a party in Mukhbari application nor heard before order of cancellation of land passed by Settlement Authorities in said application-Such person, held, condemned unheard in circumstances.

-- Ss. 10 & 11 -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199Mukhbari application-Order of cancellation of land, passed by Additional Settlement Commissioner, challenged by petitioner who purchased such land from original transferee -Findings of Additional Settlement Commissioner that allotment/confirmation of land in name of original transferee was fictitious and non-existent in Register RL II and that his entitlement Certificate was bogus, supported by evidence produced-Nothing placed on record by petitioner to show that finding of Additional Settlement Commissioner suffered from any infirmity-Held, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner having no valid title in land in dispute. petitioner could pass no better title than predecessor-in-interest-Petitioner, therefore, could not be said to have suffered any genuine injury by order of cancellation of land--Petition being without merit dismissed.

A. R. Shaukat for Petitioner.

Sh. Abdul Aaiz for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6:

Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 21st October ; 8th and 10th December, 1984.

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, called in question order dated 22-9-1976 passer by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Saddar Sub-Division, Gujranwala.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Barkat Ali son, of Allah, Bakhsh, respondent No. 4, was alleged to have obtained allotment of land measuring 42 Kanals and 6 Marlas comprising Kbasra Nos: 845, 886, 878, 839/1, 840 and 844 at Khata No. 38 of Register R.L II of village Fattumand, tehsil and district Gujranwala. This entire land was ultimately purchased by Mst. Iqbal Begum, the present petitioner, through registered sale-deeds, which were also given effect to in the revenue record for the year 1967-68. Petitioner then sold the entire land except Khasra No. 845, measuring 8 Kanals to different persons for the purpose of construction.

A Mukhbari application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was filed by Malik Muhammad Aslam and others on 15-2-1974, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid allotment on the ground that it was obtained fictitiously on a bogus claim. The said application was filed only against Barkat Ali,, respondent No. 4, the original transferee of the land in-dispute and in that neither the present petitioner nor the subsequent purchasers of the land in dispute from her were impleaded as party.. Be that as it may, it remained pending with different officers and was ultimately transferred to A.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), respondent No. 1, on 5-8-1975, when he ordered ex parte proceedings against the aforesaid respondent, Barkat Ali, on the ground that he had not appeared although he had been served through citation in the daily Maghrabi Pakistan'. The case was, thereafter, adjourned for evidence. On 3-8-1976, statement of Baz Khan, one of the applicants, was recorded and the case was adjourned to 18-8-1976, on which date report submitted by the Patwari was placed on the record and it was directed that the land in dispute having been sold to different persons, persons likely to be affected be served through a Munadi in the village. On 14-9-1976, a report was called for from the Central Record Room regarding entitlement certificate of the respondent-claimant; which was placed on the record on 22-9-1976. Learned Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 22-9-1976 passed the impugned order, whereby he cancelled the allotment of the land in dispute from the -name of Barkat Ali, respondent No. 4, holding that it-teas fictitious and fraudulently obtained on a bogus claim. Further alienation of the land in dispute was also declared to be illegal by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner.

In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner relied upon the record and the report submitted by the Patwari according to which the land in dispute was not shown to 'have been allotted/confirmed to Barkat Ali respondent in Register R. L. II. He also relied upon the report received from the Central Record Office to the effect that the entitlement certificate in the name of aforesaid Barkat Ali was bogus.

3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that on the facts aforementioned, petitioner as also the purchasers from her were necessary party to the Mukhbari application, but they were deliberately not impleaded as party with the result that they have been condemned unheard, as a consequence of the impugned order passed behind their back. Learned counsel further submitted that even Barkat Ali respondent, the original claimant/transferee was not properly served, and the orders for ex parte proceedings were not justified.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, no doubt, the petitioner and other vendees from her were not impleaded as party in the original application but they were served through Munadi in the village, and in any case, they would sink or swim with the original transferee who was a party in the proceedings before the Additional Settlement Commissioner and was proceeded against ex parte. Argument of the learned counsel for the respondents was that non-hearing of the petitioner was, therefore, of no legal consequence. Learned counsel further 'submitted that even if it be held that the petitioner was riot heard before the impugned order was passsed, she will, at the most, be entitles to an opportunity of hearing which shall not serve any useful purpose in view of the finding of fact recorded by the competent authority that the allotment of her predecessorin-title was bogus and fraudulent.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased . the land in dispute from the original transferee through registered sale-deeds and her name also appeared in the revenue record. She should, therefore, have been impleaded as a party in the Mukhbari application which was A not done. It is also quite clear that the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was passed. On these premises, she can be said to have been condemned unheard. Question, however, arises whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, any useful purpose will be served to remit the case to the Settlement authorities for fresh decision after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case .for fresh decision, because I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) to the effect that) the allotment/confirmation of the land in dispute in the name of Barkat Ali, respondent, the original transferee, was fictitious and non-existent in the Register R.L. II and that his entitlement certificate was bogus was supported by the evidence produced before him. It is significant that the learned B counsel appearing for the petitioner did not place on record anything to show that the finding of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner suffered from any infirmity. Thus, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner having got no valid title in the land in dispute, he could pass no better title to her with the result that she cannot be said to have suffered any genuine injury by the impugned order.