SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 18-9-2003 in Writ Petition No,1994 of 1995.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 was allotted two hundred Kanals of the land in Chak No,154/3-L in Killas Nos.1-25 in Square No,56 Tehsil Haroonabad District Bahawalnagar vide order, dated 7-4-1977 by the Border Area Committee. This land was allotted under the Indo-Pak Border Area Scheme to service/ex-service man of armed forces who unearthed such land and fulfilled the conditions contained in the letter of GHQ, dated 13-4-1976. On payment of the requisite State dues a conveyance deed was executed in favour of the respondent on 14-2-1982 which was registered on 23-2-1982. However, in spite of best efforts the respondent No,1 could not get the Revenue Record in respect of the demised land mutated in his favour. Subsequently, the land in question was allotted to the petitioner on 8-4-1985 and vide Mutation No,466 attested on 18-6-1992 he was incorporated as owner thereof. The respondent No,1 challenged the said allotment by moving an application which was dismissed by Border Area Committee vide order dated 8-1-1995.
The respondent No,1 assailed the said order of Border Area Allotment Committee by filing a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench which was decided in his favour and the order of Border Area Committee was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Petitioner, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 18-9-2003 has assailed the same by way of this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have, heard the arguments of Mr. Abdur Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court who appeared on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court Who appeared on behalf of respondent No,1 and Raja Saeed Akram, A.A.-G. (Punjab) for official respondents.
4. Mr. Abdur Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court submitted that respondent No,1 had obtained the allotment in his favour by way of forgery and cheating. Elaborating his arguments he submitted that respondent No,1 had actually applied for allotment of land comprised in Chak No,77/1-L Tehsil Haroonabad District Bahawalnagar but by fabrication/forgery converted Chak No,77/1-L to Chak No,154/3-L, which was apparent from a bare perusal of his application dated 13-4-1976 wherein Chak No,77/1-L was converted to Chak No,154/3-L by overwriting/interpolation. He further submitted that in view of the above fabrication/forgery respondent No,1 was unable to get the demised land mutated in his favour in the record of rights wherein status of the demised land was shown as Baqia Sarkar. His other arguments was that respondent No,1 did not cultivate the demised land which resulted in breach of terms and conditions of allotment warranting cancellation of allotment in his favour.
5. Mr. Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court learned counsel for respondent No,1 supported the impugned judgment of the High Court and submitted that there was no denial of the fact that a conveyance deed has been executed in favour of respondent No,1 in respect of the demised land which was in existence on 31-3-1985 when approval for allotment of the demised land was accorded in favour of petitioner. He further submitted that it was a case of double allotment and High Court rightly held the same to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the principle that unless a prior allotment made of a particular land made in favour of a party was cancelled or set aside no fresh allotment could be made in respect of another party. He further submitted that Border Area Allotment Committee without any evidence or material on record concluded that respondent No,1 had unearthed area in Chak No,77/1-L, Tehsil Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar and had applied for allotment of the said land but subsequently by interpolation and change of Chak No,154/3-L which was absolutely and arbitrary and whimsical pronouncement not backed by any evidence on record .
6. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record . For a just and proper decision it will appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion from the judgment of the High Court. The High Court while dealing with the question of interpolation/overwriting by respondent No,1 made the following observations:-- "The argument of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 to the effect that the petitioner had applied for allotment of the land in Chak No,77/1-L but by getting the record fabricated in connivance with the concerned official he succeeded to get the land in question allotted in his favour in Chak No,154/3-L, cannot be given much weight as the allotment and ultimate final transfer of the land in question had never been challenged earlier by anyone in any manner, before any forum and the main ground prevailed on the member of the Border Area Committee in support of the present impugned order was to the effect that the conveyance deed regarding land in question in favour of the petitioner was never incorporated in the Revenue Record as the requisite mutation was also not sanctioned, therefore, the same shown to be "Baqia Sarkar" in the Revenue Record was rightly allotted to respondent No,1 but it is well-settled that mutation does not create a title and it is the Conveyance Deed which creates title; this being so, after having paid the entire State dues, the land in question was permanently transferred in favour of the petitioner vide the Conveyance Deed (mentioned above) and if no entry in that regard was incorporated in the Revenue Record by way of mutation, he cannot be penalized as it was the function of the concerned officials to make the requisite entry with reference to the Conveyance Deed of the petitioner in the Revenue Record ."
7. With regard to the contention that respondent No,1 did not cultivate the land in question thus was guilty of breach of the terms and conditions of allotment rendering the allotment liable to be cancelled. The High Court observed as under:- "The arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No,1 that petitioner did not cultivate the lands in question thus he was guilty of breach of terms and conditions of the allotment, as a consequence thereof the allotment in his favour merited to be cancelled, is devoid of substantial force as the land in question remained uncultivated as per the latest Revenue Record placed on the record by respondent No,1 himself and if it is taken to be so, his (respondent No,1) allotment also merits to be cancelled. This very submission can also be repelled on the ground that it is not a case of cancellation of allotment from the name of the petitioner on this score as no order in this regard had ever been passed. To substantiate it, one can safely state that after having paid the entire dues of the State that and after having been issued a Conveyance Deed qua the lands in question the petitioner had become the exclusively owner thereof."
8. It is to be noted that as observed by the High Court allotment of the land was regulated/governed by West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation") Schedule!!! Thereof prescribes not only the terms and conditions for allotment of the land but also the grounds on which such allotment would be liable for cancellation as well as the procedure to be adopted for cancellation of the allotment. From the perusal of the record it cannot be said that either the official respondent had taken recourse to the procedure prescribed in the Regulation nor there is any evidence that paragraphs 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule-III to the Regulation stating the grounds on which the allotment would liable to be cancellation were breached giving rise to cancellation of the land.
9. From perusal of the passages reproduced from the judgment of the High Court reproduced hereinabove material on record and the relevant provisions of regulations and its Schedule-III it may be observed that demised land was allotted in favour of respondent No,1 in accordance with the provisions of law and the allotment followed by the execution of Conveyance Deed in his favour was very much alive on 31-3-1985 when the Allotment of the demised land was made in favour of petitioner. Even if the order of allotment dated 17-4-1977 in favour of respondent No, I was illegal having been procured by fraud/forgery by way of interpolation/overwriting of Chak number the same was required to be cancelled or set aside by the competent authority as envisaged in the regulation. Such course having not been adopted and the allotment in favour of respondent No,1 being in existence, its subsequent allotment in favour of petitioner was illegal and of no legal effect.
Second/fresh allotment in favour of another person could have been made only if the order of allotment in favour of respondent No,1 had been cancelled or set aside by the competent authority.
The finding to the effect that respondent No,1 had obtained the allotment by practising fraud, interpolation/manipulation of the official record could be arrived at only if respondent No,1 was conferred with such allegation and provided an opportunity to disprove the same.
10. In view of above we are of the opinion that High Court did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned judgment. No question of law of importance is involved in this petition warranting interference by this Court.
11. For the foregoing facts, reasons and discussion this petition is found to be without any substance and is dismissed.