Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, J. Through three Constitutional Petitions No.5-R/1986, No.33- R/1990 & No.345-R/ 1984, the petitioners have assailed order dated 19.12.1985 of the Notified Officer, this Court accepted all the three petitions vide judgment dated 08.01.2000 and remanded the matter to Notified Officer for deciding afresh, the aggrieved persons assailed the judgment dated 08.01.2000 through three independent civil appeals No.2731 to 2733 of 2001, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 05.05.2008 set aside the judgment dated 08.01.2000 and remanded all the three petitions to this Court for deciding afresh in the following terms: "Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case in either way and also on the question as to whether the right of filing of petition in the High Court can be exercised to avail the benefit of leave granting order, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case to the High Court for decision of the writ petitions on merits quite independently to the earlier order passed by this Court or this order.
The matter shall be open for decision on all issues in the light of settlement record and parties shall be at liberty to raise any question of law and fact before the High Court including the question whether the date on which the case was decided was actually fixed by Additional Settlement Commissioner or not." meaning thereby all the three constitutional petitions will be deemed to be pending and will be decided afresh.
2. The record reveals that respondent No.2 passed order dated 19.12.1985 in terms of judgment of this Court dated 03.8.1984 passed in writ petition No.69-R/1978 whereby this Court decided the following writ petitions No.69-R/1978, 566-R/1981, 1016-R/1979, 569-R/1981 & 13-R/1983.
3. Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 19.12.1985 of respondent No.2, the Notified Officer, whereby the Notified Officer permitted the respondents to purchase the suit land under Section 3(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust Properties & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.
4. The facts in brief of this petition are that one Atta Muhamamd, secured allotment of an evacuee land measuring 342 Kanal at Khata No.168 RL-II on 6.6.1966 in Qila Deedar Singh, Tehsil and District Gujranwala. Another set of displaced persons namely Sultana Begum, Raj s/o Ranjha, Nazar s/o Walayat and Mst. Shah Bibi were allotted the same land subsequent to the allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad and others. It is pertinent to mention that land allotted to petitioners was earlier numbered as Khata No.168 RL-II.
Sultana Begum land measuring 1575 Kanals 16 Marlas Khata No.191 RL-II on 19.5.1968.
Raj s/o Ranjha, land measuring 51 Kanals 19 Marlas, Khata No.192 RL-II on 19.5.1968.
Nazar s/o Walayat, land measuring 114 Kanals 14 Marlas, Khata No.193 RL-II on 19.5.1968 & Mst.Shah Bibi, land measuring 685 Kanals 15 Marlas on 19.5.1968.
5. Atta Muhammad immediately after securing the allotment of land sold it to the present respondents. It appears that Atta Muhammad a displaced person from Ferozpur India, submitted his claim and Central Record Room verified his 2931 PIUs. Land measuring 238-Kanals 7-Marlas equal to 2018 PIUs in Khata R.L-II No.8 in village Dilbagh Rai District Okara was allotted to Atta Muhammad and land measuring 185 Kanals equal to 1123 PIUs was confirmed in the name of his son namely Lal Khan s/o Atta Muhammad in Chak No.17-SP District Sahiwal in the year 1953, in this way entire claim of Atta Muhammad was satisfied in the year 1953. Atta Muhammad admittedly died on 09.6.1957 and mutation of his inheritance was attested on 29.6.1969 in favour of his legal heirs. One Javed Akbar on 06.6.1996 acting general attorney of Atta Muhammad got allotted land measuring 342-Kanals 15-Marlas at Khata No.168 RL-II in village Qila Didar Singh Tehsil & District Gujranwala against the PIUs of Atta Muhammad, out of land measuring 342-Kanals the attorney sold land measuring 315 Kanals 19 Marlas to one Lt. Col. Akbar Khan and balance land to Dilshad Ahmad. The subsequent purchasers continued to sell the land to different persons. The allotment of Khata R.L.II No.168 Qila Didar Singh was scrutinized in the year 1969-70 and the competent authority after detailed inquiry and verifying the record found the allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad bogus and cancelled. The aggrieved persons assailed the order of Settlement Commissioner dated 17.8.1977 through writ petition No.69-R of 1978, during the pendency of above writ petition one Iftikhar Nabi, etc filed another application under Section 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 against Atta Muhammad and others, M.A.Razaq Settlement Commissioner on 22.7.1978 also cancelled the allotment of Atta Muhammad and others at Khata R.L.II No.168. Ali Haider and others assailed the order dated 22.7.1978 through a writ petition No.566-R of 1981. This court vide judgment dated 03.4.1984 while setting aside the order dated 22.7.1978 directed the Notified Officer to decide the matter afresh after hearing all the parties concerned.
Respondent No.2 commenced proceedings and after hearing the parties passed an order dated 19.12.1985. The petitioners again assailed the order dated 19.12.1985 through the instant petition, this court vide judgment dated 8.1.2000 allowed the petition and remanded the matter to Notified Officer. The aggrieved parties assailed the order dated 08.1.2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan remanded all the petitions to this Court vide judgment dated 05.5.2008 for deciding afresh.
6. Mr. S. M. Naseem Senior Advocate, the Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Atta Muhammad s/o Wazir Khan had fraudulently obtained allotment in Khata R.L.II No.168 inspite of the fact that he had already obtained allotment of land in District Sahiwal in the year 1953 against his verified claim. It is also an admitted fact that Atta Muhammad died in the year 1957 and as such subsequent allotment at Khata R.L.II No.168 Qila Didar Singh Tehsil and District Gujranwala is proven fraudulent. It is a settled principle of law that the beneficiary of a fraudulent act is not entitled to any protection of law. It is an established fact on record that land at Qila Deedar Singh was allotted to four petitioners at Khata R.L.II No.191, 192, 193 and 144/1 on 19.5.1968, (the land at Khata 168 RL-II was renumbered as Khata 191,192,193 & 144/1 R-II), and after cancellation of land from the name of Atta Muhammad etc., the allotment of land to four persons (the petitioners) become automatically operative and was not reverted to compensation pool and as such the respondents could not be offered any land under the Repeal laws of 1975. It is an admitted fact that the respondents are the purchasers from a fraudulent allottee, hence they have acquired no right in the property in dispute.
The allotment dated 19.5.1968 in favour of petitioners at Khata R.L.II No.191, 192, 193 and 144/1 Qila Didar Singh were declared genuine by the Settlement Commissioner on 24.4.1977 and the High Court in writ petition No.925-R/1977 on 03.3.1980 affirmed the order dated 24.4.1977 of Settlement Commissioner, the impugned order thus allowing the respondents to purchase the land is illegal and without lawful authority. The petitioners are the allottees of the land in dispute against their verified claim. Learned counsel has relied on Farhatullah Khan and others V. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan ad others (2002 SCM R 1507), Talib Hussain and others V. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2003 SCM R 549), Kanwal Nain and 3 others V. Fathe Khan and others (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 53), Manzoor Hussain V. Fazal Hussain and others (1984 SCM R 1027), Gul Muhammad and others V. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCM R 491), Ejaz Ahmad Khan V. Chahat and others (1987 SCM R 192), Mst. Resham Bibi and 4 others V. Mst. Elahi Sain and 8 others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 1034) and Sh. Rahmatullah V. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre 'A' Karachi and others (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 633).
7. Mr. A.K Dogar Senior Advocate, Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 8, submits that an evacuee land once allotted can not be allotted to other claimant unless cancelled from the name of first allottee. The suit land was allotted in favour of Atta Muhammad and Piaray Khan, etc hence without cancellation of the land from their names the suit land cannot be allotted to any one including the petitioners. Further no cancellation order could be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the allottee and the persons acquiring title under him. Reliance is placed on Chief Commissioner, Karachi and another V. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 1959 Supreme Court 45). Learned counsel submits that the petitioners purchased the suit land through registered sale deeds and mutations of which have been attested in the revenue record according to law, hence the registered document could not be cancelled by the Settlement authorities. He submits that even if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that the respondents vendors got allotted suit land fraudulently even then the present respondents/the purchasers being vendee in possession are as a matter of right entitled for the transfer of suit land under Section 3(1)(b) of the Repeal Act, 1975.
Reliance is placed on Lt. Col. (Retd.) Munir Hussain and others V. The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue and others (1987 SCM R 1240). The respondents are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. Reliance is placed on Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office and others V. Bashir Ahmad and 9 others (1977 SCM R 208) and Talib Hussain and others V. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2003 SCM R 549). Learned counsel adds that cancellation of first allotment would not retrospectively validate the second allotment. Learned counsel has relied on Abdul Ghani V. Noor Muhammad and others (1984 SCM R 1192) and Mst.
Irshad Begum and 2 others V. Muhamamd Arshad and 62 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 347). It is a settled principle of law that where the original allotment of land in favour of allottee is not cancelled the subsequent allotment to other person would be void and liable to be ignored. He has relied on The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore V. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 Supreme Court 331) and contends that even a fraudulent order will remain operative as long as it is not set-aside, rescinded or recalled by a competent court of law, hence the land allotted to Atta Muhammad and others till its cancellation will be deemed to be a legal allotment and the purchasers who purchased the suit land during the currency of allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad, could not be recalled or cancelled without providing an opportunity of hearing to the last purchaser.
8. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Niazi Senior Advocate, learned counsel representing a set of respondents, submits that the number of respondents had purchased suit land from the allottees in the year 1966-1967 through registered sale deeds and mutations in their favour were attested in the revenue record, M/s Sultana Begum, Raj s/o Ranjha, Nazar s/o Walayat and Shah Bibi are the subsequent allottees, hence their allotment is against law. The respondents have purchased suit land from first allottees, the Settlement Authorities illegally cancelled their allotment, the vendees/respondents challenged the cancellation order up to the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan finally observed that Settlement authorities will consider the respondents case sympathetically. The petitioners allotment dated 19.5.1968 is much later than the vendors of the respondents and admittedly at the time of allotment in favour of petitioners the land was not the part of compensation pool. The respondents are bonafide purchasers for value without notice, and as such their right to purchase the suit land is prime. Learned counsel submits that where original allotment is not cancelled, the subsequent allotment of the same land is void, he has relied on Abdul Ghani V. Noor Muhammad and others (1984 SCM R 1192) and Mst. Irshad Begum and 2 others V. Muhamamd Arshad and 62 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 347). It is settled law that order obtained through fraud is not void and is voidable only, it remains operative as long as it is not set-aside or recalled, he has relied on The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore V. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331). The argument of learned counsel is that even after the declaration of competent authority that Atta Muhammad was a fraudulent allottee, the same could not be allotted to petitioners as it was not available land on the day of allotment to petitioners, hence the subsequent allotment thus in favour of petitioners is void.
The impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law. Learned counsel has relied on Lt. Col. (Retd.) Munir Hussain and others V. The Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue and others (1987 SCM R 1240), Hussain Bibi and 4 others V. Settlement Commissioner (L) Chief Settlement Commissioner and 4 others (2004 YLR 2431), Muhammad Sharif and another V. Zafar Saeed (1987 M LD 257), Rana Ghulam Rasool and another V. Settlement Department (1991 CLC 2091), Abdul Ghani V. Noor Muhammad and others (1984 SCM R 1027) and Abdul Hamid V. M.B.R. and others (1994 CLC 1160).
9. Mr. Imran Muhammad Sarwar Advocate Learned Counsel for a set of respondents adopted the arguments of Learned Counsels of other respondents and further adds that after declaration by the competent court that allotments in favour of respondents' vendor are fraudulent, the suit land become the available land under the Repeal Act of 1975 and the respondents being in possession of the suit land became entitled of its purchase under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1975. This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its findings with the findings of Notified Officer and has relied on Syed Ansar Raza Zaidi and others V. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2007 SCM R 910), Syed Azmat Ali V. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 260) and Naveed Ahmed Malik V. District Officer (Revenue) Notified Officer, District Courts, Lahore and 22 others (2006 SCM R 41).
10. Heard and perused the record with the help of learned counsels of the parties.
11. From the above said facts, the issue required for resolution is, whether fraudulent allotment creates any right in favour of the allottee? Whether the purchaser from fraudulent owner can claim better title than his/her vendor? Whether the earlier fraudulent allotment of land will prevail upon the subsequent genuine allotment or not? And whether the protection of Section 3(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust properties and Displaced Persons Laws (repeal) Act, 1975 will be available to the purchaser who purchased the land from the fraudulent allottee.? Whether the protection of Section 41of Transfer of Property Act is available to the purchaser who purchased the land from the fraudulent allottee ?
12. It is an admitted fact that allotment of land in favour of Atta Muhammad and others (the respondents Vendors) situated at Qila Didar Singh is finally declared fraudulent. The same land was allotted to petitioners Sultana Begum and others on 19.5.1968 against their genuine and verified claims after an allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they are subsequent allottee of land already allotted to Atta Muhammad etc., as the land was not available for allotment. It is not a dispute between the parties that suit land is an evacuee land and can be allotted to those persons who abandoned their land in India at the time of creation of the country and are having genuine verified claim. The present respondents are the purchasers of evacuee land from Atta Muhammad and others, (the declared fraudulent allottees).
The respondent No.2 after declaring the allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad fraudulent, permitted the subsequent purchasers of Atta Muhammad to purchase the land considering their occupation legal in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Evacuee Trust properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1975).
13. The respondents admittedly have not assailed the order dated 19.12.1985 meaning thereby they have accepted that they have not acquired any right in the suit land on the basis of their purchase from the fraudulent allottees and accepted to purchase the land under the Act of 1975. It is an admitted fact that respondents are not the displaced persons, nor they have any verified claim or unit. In these circumstances It has to be seen what is the intention of Act of 1975. Whether the respondent No.2 can offer a non-claimant to purchase the available evacuee land?
14. For better appreciation of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1975, it is reproduced as under:- "3. Transfer of property.---(1) All properties, both urban and rural, including agricultural land, other than such properties attached to charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions, whether occupied or unoccupied, which may be available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government, on payment of such price as may be fixed by the Federal Government in consultation with the Provincial Government, for disposal:--
(a) in the case of urban properties, by the Provincial Government under a scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf; and
(b) in the case of rural properties, by the Board of Revenue of the Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf: Provided that agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land: Provided further that only so much land shall be offered to such person as does not together with land already held by him, exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972".
15. If we accept the arguments of learned counsel for respondents that the respondents are in possession of the land before Kharif 1973 on the basis of purchase from fraudulent allottee, then definitely we are reading that the word "occupied" means even an illegal occupation and usurper of the land. The intention of law maker is very clear, the word "occupied" appearing in section 3 of Act of 1975 means the legal occupation like a temporary allottee or allottee under some valid order passed by the competent authority. If the intention of the law maker is that word "Occupied: mean the illegal occupation than they must have mention that the illegal occupants of the evacuee land or property are also entitled to purchase the land or property in their possession. In the absence of word illegal occupation the plain reading of the word "Occupied" mean the legal possession. It is admitted fact that the respondents vendors allotment was fraudulent one and the respondents came into possession of land through fraudulent allottee. Further the word mentioned in Section 3 of Act of 1975 is "Offered for Sale" It did not mean that evacuee land will be offered @ Rs.100/- per PIU. If the occupant is claimant than it can be said that he can purchase the land @ Rs.100/- per PIU as he is holding unadjusted PIUs but where the occupant is claiming possession on the basis of purchase of land from a fraudulent person he could not be offered Evacuee property on the rates which were fixed in the year 1947, in that case where the occupant is non claimant or is in occupation with any legal permission is entitled to purchase the land on market price. In my humble opinion in the present case the land was not available for sale under Section 3 of the Act of 1975.
16. As far as the argument of Learned Counsel for the respondents that respondents' sale is protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In a case reported as Manzoor Hussain V. Fazal Hussain and others (1984 SCM R 1027) it is finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that protection of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not available to the fraudulent sale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- "Here we may point out that the principle incorporated in section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is an equitable doctrine of estoppel and in the context of the fraudulent allotment could it be said that the owner, i.e the Government had consented to the ostensible ownership of the allottee which being a question of fact had to be determined upon the particular facts of each case. The observation, accordingly, is the enunciation of the principle laid down in section 41 where there is no dispute in regard to this aspect of the case".
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Farhatullah Khan and others V. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan ad others (2002 SCM R 1507) held as under:- "Thus it is held that any transaction which is based on fraud cannot be sustained in the eye of law and such transferees are bound to swim or sink alongwith the transferor. Besides it for the reason that a fraudulent transaction, however, it may be solemn but is bound to be vitiated in terms of principle of law".
18. Reliance can also be placed on Kanwal Nain and 3 others V. Fathe Khan and others (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 53), Gul Muhammad and others V. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCM R 491), Ejaz Ahmad Khan V. Chahat and others (1987 SCM R 192) and Mst. Resham Bibi and 4 others V. Mst. Elahi Sain and 8 others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 1034).
19. The above law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that if any person comes into possession of property with the help of fraudulent owner, the protection of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not available to him. The protection of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act is available only to those persons who are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. In the cases under Displaced Persons and Rehabilitation Act 1958, Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act is not applicable as the fraudulent claimants are frequently getting allotment of evacuee land with the assistance of Settlement Department employees, The law maker was conscious of expected fraudulent transaction and as such they while enacting the evacuee laws provided the mechanism to curb the fraudulent allotment under Section 10 and 11 of the Settlement Laws the Settlement Authorities were competent to invite third parties to provide information about the fraudulent allotment and claims and in case of success the applicants of Section 10 and 11 were entitled for the benefit of resumed or cancelled land.
20. The petitioners are genuine allottee of suit land being evacuee, after the declaration that Atta Muhammad secured allotment of land through fraud the petitioner allotment will automatically become operative and the land was not reverted to compensation pool. As the suit land was not the part of compensation pool hence it was not available land in terms of Section 3 of the Evacuee Trust Properties and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975.
21. It is settled principal of law that fraud vitiate even the solemn acts or proceedings and the transaction based on fraud has no foundation, whenever the fraudulent transaction is declared null and void all subsequent transactions automatically attain the status of nullity and of no legal effect. To overcome the above legal proposition of law the Learned Counsels for the respondents argues that order obtained through fraud is not void but is voidable and that too unless declared by the court, so all transactions from the date of allotment till its declaration by the court that the allotment is fraudulent are valid transactions, the respondents have purchased the suit land when it was not declared fraudulent, hence they are entitled the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The complete answer of this argument is in Manzoor Hussain case (Supra) (1984 SCM R 1027), Farhatullah Khan and others V. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan ad others (2002 SCM R 1507), Kanwal Nain and 3 others V. Fathe Khan and others (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 53), Gul Muhammad and others V. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCM R 491), Ejaz Ahmad Khan V. Chahat and others (1987 SCM R 192) and Mst. Resham Bibi and 4 others V. Mst. Elahi Sain and 8 others (PLD 1991 SC 1034).
22. The third argument of Learned counsel for respondents is that respondents are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. Their reliance is on Lt. Col. (Retd.) Munir Hussain and others V.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner/MEmber, Board of Revenue and others (1987 SCM R 1240) supra.
23. In this case the land was not allotted to any genuine claimant and after cancellation from the name of Kala the contest was between the subsequent purchaser and Mukhbar but in the present case the issue is whether the purchaser from fraudulent allottee will supersede the allotment to a genuine claimant. It is an admitted fact between the parties that petitioners are subsequent allottees of land in dispute and the respondents are the purchasers of land from the fraudulent allottees, and the fraudulent allotment has finally been cancelled. The respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 19.12.1985 cancelled the allotment from the name of fraudulent allottees and assumed that the cancelled land become the part of compensation pool on the day of cancellation of final order dated 19.12.1985, and after that the subsequent purchaser will become entitle under section 3(1)(b) of the Repeal Act of 1975 as they are occupying the suit land, but the cancelled land in dispute was allotted to petitioners on 19.5.1968, hence the petitioner become the first allottee and the suit land in these circumstances will not be reverted to compensation pool, the rational of judgment of Lt. Col. (Rtd) Muneer Hussain (Supra) will not be applicable on the case in hand.
24. The respondents and the petitioners of writ petitions No.33-R/1990 and W.P.No.345-R/1984 have not assailed the order dated 19.12.1985; hence they have relinquished their claim against the suit land that they are bonafide purchasers for value without notice. As far as the respondents' claim that they are in possession of land hence they are entitled for the transfer of land under the Repeal Act of 1975, is concerned, after the final declaration of competent authority that allotment in favour of the vendors of respondents was fraudulent, the respondents have no recourse against the suit land.
25. The respondents have the recourse to recover their amount and even damages from the fraudulent seller. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents are not the displaced persons who are admitted in the first instance are entitled for the transfer of evacuee land, the respondents are not the claimants, they are the purchasers from the fraudulent claimants/ allottees, hence, they are not entitled for the benefit of Section 3(1)(b) of Repeal Act, 1975.
26. Now the question arose, whether the petitioners being subsequent allottees, can claim any lien or charge against the evacuee property, the answer is in affirmative, the petitioners are the displaced persons, their claims are duly verified by the competent authority, hence they have the first right against the evacuee property. There is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioners, no one is claiming that the petitioners are not the genuine claimants, the allegation against the petitioners is only that they are the subsequent allottees of disputed land. If the argument of learned counsel for respondents that their possession will enable them to give preference on the subsequent allotment, is accepted, then the respondents are burdening the state to compensate them against the fraudulent act of a third party (vendor). The Court cannot ratify the fraudulent act of any person; the respondents can claim their investment with damages from the fraudulent persons, In these circumstances in my humble opinion the fraudulent purchase will not supersede the subsequent genuine allotment of land to legally entitled persons.
The respondents never asked nor it is the case of respondents that they have inspected or verified the allotment in favour of their vendors from the competent authority. The record shows that the fraudulent persons after the allotment of land immediately opted to sell the land which in fact is not the spirit of Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws were enacted only to settle the evacuees and they were given a right to get the property in Pakistan which they abandoned in India. It is note worthy that all the vendors immediately after allotment, sold the land to third persons. In case of Atta Muhammad, it is a proven fact on record that his attorney was fake, the person who claims himself was an attorney of dead person. It is proven fact that Mr. Javed Akbar prepared the document of attorney on behalf of a dead person as Atta Muhammad died on 9.6.1957 and his mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of his legal heirs on 29.6.1969 and the attorney was prepared after his death.
27. As the respondents being the purchasers from the fraudulent persons have no right in the suit land, hence the allotment in favour of the verified claimants become absolute on declaration of the Competent Authority that allotment in favour of Atta Muhammad and others was fraudulent.
The impugned order dated 19.12.1985 thus is declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The petition is allowed in the above said terms.