SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN,J.-Sufi Mehdi Hassan, the petitioner, seeks review of our order dated 16-3-1980 by which leave was refused to him.
2. The petitioner laid and information against the claim and allotment of Mst. Ramzan Begum. His application was dated 15-4-1971. Earlier to it on 9-5-196.6 the Director, Enforcement, had already moved for inquiry into the allotments secured by Mst. Ramzan Begum. In dealing with these matters the Settlement Authorities cancelled the allotments secured by Mst. Ramzan Begum in District Muzaffargarh and readjusted the allotments obtained by her in District Sheikupura to bring it in accordance with her entitlement. However, as some of the transferees from the allottee had not been heard the matter had. To be sent back to the Settlement Authorities for affording them a hearing. It was during these proceedings on remand that the petitioner intervened with an application dated 28-12-1977 claiming adjudica--tion on the very existence of the verified claim in favour of Mst. Ramzan Begum the Settlement Authorities proceeded to reopen the mattes In a Constitutional petition filed by the respondents-transferees from Mst. Ramzan Begum the Settlement Authorities were directed to keep the inquiry within the four corners of the remand order namely of adjusting the allotment in accordance with the entitlement of the petitioner keeping in view and after hearing the transferees from her. The petitioner sought leave to appeal which was refused to him on the ground that the petitioner's pending claim stood satisfied and further because the earlier litigation had reached a stage where it could not be permitted to be started ab initio or de novo particularly so after the repeal of the evacuee laws in 1974.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking review has reiterated all the grounds, which were addressed and have been taken note of in the judgment under consideration. It is stated that fraud is such a taint in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings that it cannot be allowed to remain unexamined nor can the party indulging in it can be allowed to reap the benefits of the fraud.
Further, it is said that once an allegation has been made with regard to the commission of the fraud and the fictitious nature of the verified claim it was incumbent on the authority to look into it and afford adequate remedy to the parties affected.
4. We are not prepared to reopen the case with a view to afford a rehearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner. We would repeat what, has earlier been said that the petitioner's claim stands satisfied and he has no tangible interest as such in the proceedings. The earlier litigation, which had come up even upto this Court had determined certain matter and the remand was limited to affording a hearing to the transferees with a view to determine their right inter se and to make appropriate adjust--ments in their allotments. After the repeal of the laws the entire matter of verification of the claim could not be permitted to be re-examined at the request of a party like the petitioner whose claim stood satisfied. We do no find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.