' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---The petitioner has assailed the order dated 29-4-2006 passed by Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock in the instant writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted land measuring 94 kanals 18 marla in Khasra Nos.2310 and 2363 on 15-11-1989 by Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock under Land Reforms Act, 1977 vide impugned order dated 29-4-2006, the Deputy Land Commissioner cancelled the allotment of land measuring 40 kanals out of 94 kanals -18 marlas and resumed in favour of Provincial Govt. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned order dated 29-4-2006 is illegal, coram non judice, without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside simply in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case " azalbash Wa f v. Chief Land Commissioner", reported as (PLD 1990 SC 99) whereby the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977 were declared repugnant to the injunctions of Islam, therefore, after 23-3-1990, Deputy Land Commissioner had no authority to proceed with the matter and resume the land in favour of Provincial Govt. Or cancel allotment from the name of petitioner, therefore, order dated 29-4-2006 be set aside being void ab initio.
3. Conversely, learned A.A.-G. Has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that according to the report of Tehsildar, Fateh Jang dated 17-1-1991, the allottee was neither a tenant nor in possession of suit land since the date of allotment, so respondent No,1 has rightly cancelled the allotment from the name of petitioner and resumed the land in favour of Provincial Govt., this writ petition is without any substance, it be dismissed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner was that by virtue of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner", reported as (PLD 1990 SC 99), the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977 have been declared against the injunctions of Islam and have also seized to exist from 23-3-1990, thereafter the Deputy Land Commissioner had no authority to proceed with the matter, cancel the allotment of petitioner and resumed the land in favour of Provincial Govt. -
6. Perusal of impugned order reveals that the land was cancelled from the name of petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not entitled to be allotted suit land because neither the petitioner was in possession of suit land nor he was tenant.
7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly asked to show any document that on the crucial date, the petitioner was in possession of suit land as a tenant but learned counsel could not produce any documentary evidence in this behalf and simply insisted that the Deputy Land Commissioner, Attock had no authority to cancel the land from the name of petitioner as the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1977 have been declared against the injunctions of Islam by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
8. Perusal of record further reveals that the allotment to the extent of 40 kanals in the name of petitioner was based on fraud and question of fraud would always be open to scrutiny in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case "Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others" reported as (PLD 1991 SC 691).
9. I find no illegality in the impugned order because learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any supporting evidence in favour of petitioner that on the crucial date, he was in possession of suit land as tenant. The instant writ petition is without any merit, no interference is called for, same is dismissed.