Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Intra-Court Appeals Nos. 110 to 112 of 1979/BWP, decided on 9th July, 1984.
--- Para.24, Proviso 2 [as amended by Memorandum No.2273-64/3225 (L), dated 1st July, 19641--Claimant of rural agricultural land--Entitlement for settlement on urban agricultural land--To make claimant of rural agricultural land entitled for settlement on urban agricultural land, essential conditions, held, would be that such claimant must be temporary allottee of such urban land and he must be in possession thereof for five years on or before 8th December, 1960.
---Ss. 10 & 11--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)--Mukhbari application purported to be presented on 29-6-1974--Evacuee Laws repealed with effect from 1-7-1974--Genuineness of such application doubtful--Reasons stated.
---Ss. 10 & 11-- Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2(2)--No validly constituted Mukhbari proceedings pending adjudication immediately before repeal of evacuee laws- Jurisdiction of Settlement Authority--In absence of any genuine Mukhbari application pending before repeal of evacuee laws, Settlement Authority, held, had no jurisdiction to probe into matter under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, especially when no element of fraud or misrepresentation had either been alleged or established against any of allottees or their representatives-in-interest.
---Ss. 10 & 11--Letters Patent Appeal--Intra-Court Appeal Where Mukhbari application purported to have been moved immediately on the eve of the repeal of Evacuee Laws and was proved to be fake, High Court, held, was justified in declaring order passed on basis of such application to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect- Intra-Court Appeal against judgment of High Court being without merit was dismissed.
Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Appellant.
Abid Hassan Minto for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 11th March, and 1st April, 1984.
This order shall govern three Intra-Court Appeals (Nos. 110,, 111 and 112 of 1979/BWP) which have arisen from the order of learned Single Judge, dated 18-4-1979 whereby three Writ Petitions (Nos. 79-R, 80-R and 81-R of 1976/BWP) were allowed and Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rahimyar Khans order dated 25-3-1976 cancelling land confirmed to Ismat Ullah etc. heirs of Sharaf Din (predecessors-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 in I.-C.A. No.110/79/BWP) Barkat Ali and Noor Muhammad (Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in I.-C.A. No.III/79 BWP) ,and Muhammad Ali etc. heirs of Ghulam Muhammad (respondents Nos.1 to 5 I.-C.A. No.112/79/BWP) was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The relevant facts of each I.-C.A. are detailed below separately for the sake of convenience:
(I) Intra-Court Appeal No.110/79/BWP:
One Sharaf Din alias Sharfoo son of Dulla caste Arain a Displaced Person from tehsil Phillaur, district Jullundher settled in village Chandrami, tehsil Sadiqabad, district Rahimyar Khan. He filed claim No.32702 for rural agricultural land abandoned by him in India. After verification, his claim was received and entered at R.L.II Khata No.23 in this village. On his death mutation of inheritance No.15 was attested on 12-2-1965 in favour of his heirs, namely, Ismat Ullah, Rahmat Ullah, Ibrahim (sons), Mst. Sharifan Bibi, Mst. Haliman Bibi (daughters) and Mst. Umri (widow). The name of Mst. Umri appears to have been omitted from the R.L.II on account of oversight. An area of 58 Kanals of urban land comprising Killas Nos. 6, 14 to 18, 24 min and 25 in rectangle No. 265/11 was confirmed to them on 9-12-1969 against their claim for rural land under the wrong impression that this area was on temporary allotment for more than 5 years with their predecessor-in- interest Sharfoo deceased. It may be pointed out that Mst. Umri widow of Sharfoo (one of the share-holders) was, of course, a temporary allottee of this area since 1948 who remained in its possession for more than 5 years as indicated by the report of Patwari at page 42 of the file of Additional Settlement Commissioner. The aforesaid ladies transferred their share in the land to the male co-sharers vide Mutations Nos.260 and 261 dated 13-3-1970. Subsequently Ismat Ullah, Rehmat Ullah and Ibrahim sold 104 Kanals of land including the aforementioned area of Nasir Farooq, etc. to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 through oral sale vide Mutation No.329 dated 24-10-1973 for a consideration of Rs.1,30,000 as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1969-70, who are still in its possession.
(ii) Intra-Court Appeal No.111/79/BWP:
Barkat Ali son of Rehmat Ali (respondent No.1) a refugee from tehsil Nikoder, district Jullundher after migration to Pakistan settled in village Chandrami and filed Claim No.10431 for his rural agricultural land left behind. His claim was received in the estate and entered at R.L.II Khata No.14. He was temporarily allotted Killa No.1 of rectangle No. 285/2 on 6-3-1956 besides other land which eventually was confirmed to him by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 22-10-1969. Likewise, Noor Muhammad (respondent No.2) another refugee from district Jullundher, filed Claim No. 7309 which was received after verification in village Jamwala wherefrom it was received on transfer in village Chandrami. He was allotted 228 Kanals 15 Marlas of urban land jointly with other refugees on temporary basis on 17-2-1956 including 16 Kanals in Killas Nos. 4, 5 and 8 of rectangle No. 265114 which was confirmed to him on 22-10-1969 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It may be mentioned that by 8-12-1960 their period of possession was 2/3 months short of 5 years.
(iii) Intra-Court Appeal No. 112/79/BWP:
Ghulam Muhammad son of Imam-ud-Din (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 5), a refugee from tehsil Jagrawan, district Ludhiana, filed Claim No.3701 for his rural agricultural land left in India. It was received in village Chandrami after verification and entered at R.L.II Khata No.11. He was temporarily allotted urban agricultural land with other displaced persons in rectangles Nos. 266/13 and 266/14. On his death mutation of inheritance No.12 dated 12-2-1965 was attested in favour of his heirs Muhammad Ali etc. (respondents Nos. 1 to 5). At the time of confirmation of their allotment, Chairman Allotment Committee recommended that 16 Kanals of land from Killa Nos. 5 and 6 of rectangle No.265/13 from the temporary allotment of Fateh Din, a non-claimant, should be confirmed to them. On 18-6-1969, the proposal was declined for they were not temporary allottees of the area but on 9-12-1969 the Additional Settlement Commissioner confirmed this area to them under mistaken belief that they were its temporary allottees with more than 5 years possession.
3. It may be mentioned that all the above-noted orders confirming the allotments were not challenged by means of appeal or- revision perhaps for the reason that all the claimants in this estate .have been satisfied.
4. It so happened that an undated Mukhbari application (bearing No.184) purported to have been signed by-
(1) Usman Ali Jafri,
(2) Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Rafi, Abdul Aziz sons of, and Mst. Rafiq-un-Nisa daughter of Khairati through their attorney Muhammad Ali, and
(3) Noor Muhammad son of Ghulam Hussain through his attorney Muhammad Yousaf, was moved to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, on 29-6-1974 (a day before the repeal of Evacuee Laws) informing that allotments of land to Ghulam Muhammad, Barkat Ali, Noor Muhammad, Rehmat Ullah, Ismat Ullah, were made in violation of the provisions of Settlement Scheme No.II, which should be cancelled from their names and allotted to them. The Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the "Mukhbar" (informer) to furnish proof on 8-7-1974 in support of the allegations but nobody appeared on that date and consequently that Mukhbari application was dismissed in default and also for want of proof. However, on 30-12-1974, the "informers" presented an application (bearing date 19-12-1974) through their counsel seeking restoration of Mukhbari application, on the ground that A.D.C./Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) due to the repeal of Evacuee Laws on 1-7-1974 had no power to deal with the matter thus the order dismissing the Mukhbari application on 8-7-1974 was coram non judice. The objection was upheld and the "Mukhbari application" was restored on 28-1-1975. The record show that on 25-4-1975 the applicants (informers) requested the Additional Settlement Commissioner in writing, to drop proceedings against Rehmat Ullah, Barkat Ali and Ismat Ullah, as according to the latest information, their allotments were not "bogus". This application was placed on the file without any order. On 4-2-1976, another application was moved on behalf of the informers, namely, Noor Muhammad son of Ghulam Hussain, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Rafi, Abdul Aziz sons of Mst. Rafiq-un-Nisa daughter of Khairati through their attorney Muhammad Ali informing that they have withdrawn from the proceedings leaving Usman A. Jafri as the sole informer, therefore, further proceeding be taken on his behalf alone. This application was also placed on record without orders.
5: Ultimately the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan exercising delegated powers under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, conferred under Notification No.296 (Misc.) Admn. 170/74 dated 14-11-1974 cancelled the allotments of Barkat Ali, Noor Muhammad, respondents Nos.1 and 2 in Intra-Court Appeal No.111 of 1979; Ismat Ullah, etc. predecessors-in-interest of respondents Nos.1, to 5 in Intra-Court Appeal No. 110 of 1979; and heirs of Ghulam Muhammad, namely, Muhammad Ali, etc. respondent Nos.1 to 5 in ICA No.112/79, vide order dated 25-3-1976 on the ground that they being claimants of rural agricultural land were not qualified for settlement on urban land as they were neither temporary allottees nor in continuous possession for 5 years on or before 8-12-1960 of the area confirmed to them as enjoined by second proviso to paragraph 24 of the supplementary Settlement Scheme No.II. By the same order, the land measuring 103 Kanals so resumed was confirmed at Khata No.53 to Usman Ali Jafri treating him as the "informer".
6. A day after passing of the said order one Muhammad lqbal son of Abdul Karim posing himself as special attorney of Usman Ali Jafri, respondent, presented an application to the Additional Settlement Commissioner with numerous cuttings, interpolations and over writings therein asking for a direction to the field staff, to point out and deliver the possession of the land, confirmed in the name of Usman Ali Jafri, to him. This application was accompanied by a photostat copy of the general power of attorney dated 5-5-1975 purported to have been executed in his favour by Usman Ali Jafri son of Mst. Amina Begum aged 3 years resident of Sadiqabad. The stamp paper of this document was also purchased by said Muhammad Iqbal himself.
7. As stated earlier, the disputed land measuring 103 Kanals was confirmed to Usman Ali Jafri on 25-3-1976 who in turn is shown to have immediately sold the whole of it to Muhammad Rafiq, appellant No. 1 for Rs.50,000 on 27-3-1976 through a registered sale-deed witnessed by Rashid (brother of said Muhammad Rafiq) and Muhammad lqbal (so-called attorney of Usman Ali Jafri). On that very day, out of this land Muhammad Rafiq vendee further sold 16 Kanals for Rs.20,000 to Ali Muhammad (Appellant No.2 in I.-C.A. No.111 of 1979) through a registered sale-deed and two weeks later another 16 Kanals of it were sold for Rs.20,000 to Bashir Ahmad (appellant No.2 in I.-C.A. No.110 and 112/79) vide sale-deed dated 14-4-1976.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of cancellation of land passed by Additional Settlement Commissioner on 25-3-1976, Muhammad Ali and others filed Writ Petition No. 79-R of 1976; Nasir Farooq and others filed Writ Petition No. 80-R of 1976 and Barkat Ali and Noor Muhammad filed Writ Petition No.81-R of 1976. The writ petitions produced before the learned Single Judge an affidavit dated 9-11-1978 sworn by Usman Ali Jafri (the alleged informer) wherein he had averred that his mother Mst. Amina Begum daughter of late Munshi Ali Ahmad was a claimant. She had a verified claim (MR-V No. 12467/364) for 1344 P.I. Units of Urban agricultural land. On her death, he succeeded her as the sole heir. He sold his claim to one Darogha Sultan Bakhsh son of late Haji Illahi Bakhsh in Karachi on 18-5-1972. He denied that he had any claim pending in district Rahimyar Khan or appointed Muhammad Iqbal as his attorney in May 1975. He also denied to have got allotted any land in village Chandrami and then sold it to Muhammad Rafiq, appellant, through registered sale-deed dated 27-3-1976. He gave his age as 55 years and stated that the aforementioned sale-deed as well as the power of attorney purported to have been executed by him were forged documents for his age in those documents was given as 35/37 years.
9. On 18-4-1979 miscellaneous applications in the writ petitions for confirmation /vacation of stay order were fixed. Learned Single Judge feeling that it required consideration of full facts for deciding the stay application proceeded to hear the main petitions. After hearing full-fledged arguments he allowed the writ petitions and declared the order dated 25-3-1976 of Additional Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the ground that the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the disputed land for more than 5 years when the order of cancellation was passed, therefore, they could not have been deprived of the same and the Mukhbari application alleged to have been filed one day before the repeal of Evacuee Laws was also not genuine. Relying on the affidavit of Usman A. Jafri, learned Judge in chambers observed:-
"The affidavit produced by the petitioners on behalf of respondent No.2 (Usman A. Jafri) that he had not filed the Mukhbari application or sought the allotment of the land in dispute would further strengthen the impression that the Mukhbari proceedings of cancellation of land of the petitioners and allotment thereof to respondent No.2 and its further sate-are not quite above board."
10. Through filing of these three Intra-Court Appeals the appellants have assailed the findings of learned Single Judge.
11. On 21-11-1982 this - Court directed Usman A. Jafri (informer) through whom the appellants claimed to have derived title to appear in person and also summoned the record pertaining to Mukhbari application and transfer of units of Usman A. Jafri at the request of the parties. Usman A. Jafri appeared in Court on 23-1-1983. His statement was recorded on oath and learned counsel for the appellants cross-examined him. In that he gave his age as 60 years. He stated to be a retired Customs Officer. He affirmed his averments made in the affidavit dated 9-11-1978 (filed before learned Single Judge). He also produced a document marked 'B' (copy of register allotment) showing that on 17-6-1972 land measuring 8-16 Acres worth 1008 P.I. Units was confirmed against his claim by Additional Settlement Commissioner, Karachi. He denied having filed any Mukhbari application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, or that he appointed Muhammad Iqbal as his attorney or to have sold any land to Muhammad Rafiq, appellant, through registered sale-deed dated 27-3-1976. He admitted that he had appointed Sh. Mohammad Sadiq of Sialkot as his attorney in the year 1969. The file pertaining to the transfer of Units of Usman A. Jafri shows that his claim for 1344 P.I. Units was got transferred by aforesaid Muhammad Sadiq from district Gujrat to district Rahimyar Khan in the year 1970. An area of 39 Kanals 10 Marlas for 518 P.I. Units was confirmed to him in Khanpur on 3-6-1970 which was later sold to Municipal Committee Khanpur by Muhammad Sadiq attorney on 15-7-1970. The remaining 714 P.I. Units were transferred to village Sewa Ram and from there to village Chandrami at the request of one Mohammad Hanif, who posed himself as attorney of Usman A. Jafri although there is no proof on the file that he was appointed as such by the claimant. A Letter No. SCK/KAR/80-280 dated 1-8-1980 addressed by Settlement Commissioner (Land) Karachi to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan bears a reference that 8-16 Acres have been allotted against the claim of Mst. Amina Begum (mother of Usman A. Jafri) in Karachi.
12. We have heard the viewpoint of learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record.
13. Admittedly, the original allottees/respondents had verified claims for rural agricultural land. It is nobody's case that their claims were bogus or they obtained allotment in excess of their entitlements. The objection against them is that they being claimants for rural land were not qualified to be settled upon disputed urban land because they were neither temporary allottees of that area nor they had remained in its possession for 5 years prior to 8-12-1960, as envisaged by second proviso to Paragraph 24 of Supplementary Settlement Scheme No.11, as amended by Memorandum No. 2273-64/3225 (L) dated 1st July, 1964, issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, which is reproduced hereunder with advantage:-
"The Central Government has further decided that the Urban Agricultural Land held for not less than 5 years by temporary allottees having verified rural land claims but allotted to the claimants under Supplementary Scheme No.II on or prior to 8th December, 1960 (being date of general stay order) should not be withdrawn from claimants referred to above.
The concession extended to rural area claimants for allotment of urban land against rural claims as contemplated in this office circular memo. under reference can be availed of by those rural area claimants only whose temporary urban area allotments were intact on or before 8th December, 1960, and had not been disposed of or allotted to any other claimant under supplementary scheme No. 2."
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the words "on or before 8-12-1960" occurring in the above-quoted proviso are relatable to 'allotment' and not to the words "land held for not less than 5 years". He means to say that if a rural claimant has been temporarily allotted urban land before 8-12-1960, he would be entitled for confirmation of the same, no matter if he completes 5 years possession after 8-12-1960. More or less the learned Single Judge has also expressed the same view, but we think that proviso 2 to para 24 means to lay down two essential qualifications to make a claimant of rural agricultural land entitled for settlement on urban agricultural land i.e.
(a) he must be temporary allottee of the such urban land; and also
(b) he must be in its possession for 5 years on or before 8-12-1960.
Applying this test we find that none of the claimant-respondents possessed these qualifications at the time of confirmation of allotment in the year 1969. If the interpretation of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted even then Ismat Ullah etc. the predecessor-in- interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 in Intra-Court Appeal No. 110 of 1979/BWP. and Muhammad Ali etc. respondents Nos.1 to 5 in Intra-Court Appeal No.112 of 1979/BWP were not entitled, to be settled on urban land for they were not temporary allottees before 8-12-1960 of the area confirmed to them in the year 196.9. However, we have noticed one exception and that is Mst. Umri widow of Sharfoo right-holder. The land confirmed to the heirs of Sharfoo in Khata No.23 was on temporary allotment with her since 1948 and she remained in its possession for over 5 years before 8-12-1960, therefore, at least to the extent of her share she was entitled to retain land from that area, but the Additional Settlement Commissioner has missed to note this aspect while passing resumption order dated 25-3-1976.
15. Another flaw in this order is that Nasir Farooq etc. respondents in Intra-Court Appeal No.110 of 1979/BWP claimed to be purchasers of the disputed land for value from Ismat Ullah etc. heirs of Sharfoo right-holder, who were admittedly not "par, delicto" with the vendors, and therefore, they had a right to be heard before passing of the cancellation order. It therefore, suffered from principle of natural justice qua them. Learned counsel for the appellants having realised this defect submitted that he has no objection if their case remanded to Additional Settlement Commissioner for deciding afresh after hearing them.
16. The most important point which has attracted our attention in these appeals is whether any valid and genuinely constituted Mukhbari proceedings qua the disputed land were pending before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, prior to the repeal of Evacuee Laws on 1-7-1974 or not
17. The Mukhbari application was allegedly presented in the Court of Additional Settlement Commissioner on 29-6-1974. Evacuee Laws were repealed by Ordinance XV of 1974 with effect from 1-7-1974. It is provided under section 2 (2) of the Ordinance that the proceedings pending prior to the day of repeal shall be disposed of by notified officer. Admittedly Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan was Notified Officer, enjoying delegated powers under section 10/11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 vide Government of Punjab Notification No. 296 (Misc.)-Admn. 170/74 dated 14-11-1974. On consideration of full facts and attending circumstances, we find that, the Mukhbari application presented to Additional Settlement Commissioner on 29-6-1974 was fake and in genuine and subsequent allotment and sales were also bogus for the reasons given below:-
(i) The alleged Mukhbari application is undated and the stamp affixed thereon also does not bear any date.
(ii) It was allegedly filed only a day before the repeal of Evacuee Laws. It has not been found entered in the register maintained for this purpose .as certified by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan, in his Letter No. Settle/692 dated 22-1-1983 addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court, which means that it was manoeuvred later.
(iii) The stamp affixed on the application does not appear to have been purchased by Usman Ali Jafri as the words written thereon are "Muhammad Yousaf Barai Usman Jafri", which means that neither he was present on the relevant day nor did he move this application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Neither it is alleged nor is there any proof that said Muhammad Yousaf was an authorised agent ' or attorney of Usman Ali Jafri to move this application.
(iv) The application has been drafted in "singular person" which means that it was moved by one applicant, whereas it hears names of many applicants, which appear to have been inserted subsequently. This inference is further strengthened by the fact that the Additional Settlement Commissioner's orders dated) 29-6-1974 and 8-7-1974 recorded on the reverse of this application also talk of one applicant. We think that more applicants were added for pursuing the application seeking restoration of Mukhbari application in the absence of Usman Ali Jafri and that is why after restoration order was passed on 28-1-1975 all of them meaningfully withdrew from the proceedings.
(v) Usman Ali Jafri in his affidavit dated 9-11-1978 filed before learned Single Judge and then in his statement on oath made in this Court specifically denied to have moved any Mukhbari application. He also denied to have got allotted any land in village Chandrami or to have sold it to Muhammad Rafiq, appellant, through a registered sale-deed. The appellant Muhammad Rafiq did not dare confront him with the registered sale-deed particularly with his signatures thereon. It means he did not honestly believe that it was a genuine document. Dubiousness and ingenuineness of this sale-deed is apparent from the fact that Usman Ali Jafri's age has been entered in it as 35 years whereas he was more than 55 years old at that time and had retired as Customs Officer. It is pertinent to note that the appellants did not dispute the identity of Usman A. Jafri who appeared before this Court as heir of the right-holder Mst. Amina Begum.
(vi) Another circumstance which makes the whole affair doubtful is the quick change of hands of the disputed land as noticed by learned Single Judge. The land was resumed from the allottees respondents and confirmed to Usman Ali Jafri as Mukhbar on 25-3-1976. One Muhammad Iqbal (so-called attorney) presented two applications on 25-3-1976 and 26-3-1976 asking for allotment and delivery of possession of land on behalf of Usman Ali Jafri which means that Usman A. Jafri was not personally present on those days, yet he is shown to have abruptly appeared on 27-3-1976, to sell land to Muhammad Rafiq and appear before the Registrar. However, he did not receive the amount in his presence. Curiously enough the Stamp Paper has been purchased by Muhammad Rafiq, appellant on behalf of Usman A. Jafri and the deed has been witnessed by Reshid (vendor's own brother) and Muhammad Iqbal (a self-style attorney of Usman A. Jafri).
(vii) The same day, sale of 16 Kanals by Muhammad Rafiq to Ali Muhammad, appellant, for Rs.20,000 is shown. If Usman A. Jafri had been present on 27-3-1976 then he would have preferred to sell 16 Kanals for Rs.20,000 to Ali Muhammad. Similarly if Ali Muhammad was a genuine purchaser and had been present there then he must have purchased 16 Kanals directly from Usman A. Jafri for less than half the price he paid to Muhammad Rafiq, appellant.
(viii) Not only that Usman Ali Jafri was not an informer in this case, but he had no entitlement whatsoever to get more land on his claim on 25-3-1976. His claim exhausted in June 1972 when Additional Settlement Commissioner, Karachi confirmed 8-16 Acres of land at his claim in Karachi.
19. Once it is held that the Mukhbari application was take and fictitious document, it must follow that there had been no validly constituted Mukhbari proceedings lying pending adjudication before the Additional Settlement Commissioner immediately before repeal of Evacuee Laws on 1-7-1974. Consequently we hold that Additional Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to assume authority and probe into the matter under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, moreso when no element of fraud or misrepresentation had either been alleged or established against any of the allottee respondents or their successors-in-interest. In this perspective we find that the learned Single Judge in Chambers was perfectly justified in declaring order dated 25-3-1976 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We are of the firm view that failure to interfere with the said. Order will tantamount to permitting the appellants to reap benefit of their D own fraud with immunity.
20. In the light of the above observations, all the three appeals fail which stand dismissed with costs throughout. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the concerned authorities for taking necessary penal action against the persons who have committed or abetted the commission of fraud in this case.
A.A/M-114/L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer