Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 292/R of 1978, heard on 9th February 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2‑‑Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Allotment in favour of claimant displaced person, held, could not be cancelled in absence of any evidence to the effect Faat claim of allottee was bogus and allotment was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation‑‑Inability of bona fide purchaser for value .of such land, to produce original allottee or his Mukhtar‑e‑Aam, held further, was not valid ground for holding that allotment was obtained by misrepresentation‑‑Order of cancellation of allotment was declared to have been passed, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Ch. Hafeez Ahmad for Petitioners.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondent No.1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.

Date of hearing: 9th February 1986.

Through this Constitutional Petition, Mst. Mumtaz Begum and Muhaqimad Yameen, petitioners want this Court to declare the order, dated 29‑9‑1977 of Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, respondent No.1, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to the transfer of land measuring 111 Kanals and 13 Marlas situated in village Manghia Tehsil Narowal and village Kathali Sandhu. This land was originally allotted and confirmed to Taj Muhammad on 23‑12‑1972. He sold this land to the petitioners for Rs. 45,000. Mutations in favour of the petitioners were attested. It so happened that Jalal Din and 5 others, respondents Nos. 2 to .7 moved Mukhbari application before Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lahore, respondent No.1 that allotment in favour of Taj Muhammad was bogus who vide impugned order, dated 29‑9‑1977 cancelled the allotment of Taj Muhammad on the ground that the vendees could not produce. Taj Muhammad or his General Attorney namely Muhammad Sadiq, hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Taj Muhammad was a claimant displaced person; that the land was confirmed in his name on 23‑12‑1972; that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value; that they are in possession of the disputed land and that the land has been cancelled from the name of Taj Muhammad arbitrarily, inasmuch as, there is no evidence that the allotment was obtained by Taj Muhammad through misrepresentation. The inability of the petitioners /bona fide purchasers for value to produce Taj Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq his General Attorney was not a legal and valid ground for the cancellation of the land from the name of Taj Muhammad. There is no evidence of any fraud played by Taj Muhammad. There is no evidence to the effect that his claim was bogus. Conversely, the learned counsel for Settlement Department has supported the impugned order. It may be noted that Jalal Din and others have been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that there is no evidence at all the effect that the claim of Taj Muhammad was bogus or he had obtained the allotment through fraud or misrepresentation. I feel that the learned Settlement Commissioner has cancelled the land from the name of Ta A Muhammad arbitrarily, in that the inability of the petitioners/ purchaser to produce Taj Muhammad or his Mukhtar‑e‑Aam was not a legal an valid ground for holding that the allotment was obtained b misrepresentation. The impugned order has not been passed in accordant with law.

5. For what has been said above, the impugned order is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H B T. Petition accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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