' This Constitutional Petition calls in question orders dated 24-9-70, 6-10-71 and 6-11-73, passed by the Settlement Authorities. I have beard Mr. Matloob Hasan Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a displaced person, had filed his claim in respect of agricultural land left by him in India. His claim was verified and Entitlement Certificate, namely, Q.P.R.V. For 1016 P. I. Units was issued. In satisfaction of petitioner's entitlement, be was allotted certain agricultural lands in District Sukkur in 1960. On promulgation of M. L. R. 84, the petitioner submitted his "written statement" to the Chief Settlement" Commissioner in the prescribed form The Central Record Office, Lahore issued M. R. V. (Entitlement Certificate), dated 23-11-1961 under clause 6 of M. L. R. 89 for 406 units only, and, according to the petitioner, the remaining units, namely, 610 P.
1. Units were wrongly treated as excess. It is contended that the petitioner was entitled for all his previous purchased units under clause 5(i) of M. L. R. 89, his entitlement being less than 1500 P. I.
Units. In this situation, the petitioner took two steps, according to the memo. Of petition. He made a representation to the Central Record Office, Lahore that his previous units be verified in full. He also, on the other hand, surrendered the excess units under clause 9 of M. L. R. 89 giving an. Option for the purchase of the excess land in accordance with clause 4 of the relevant Scheme framed under M. L. R. 89 as amended by M. L. R.
91. Petitioner's option for purchase was approved and he deposited first instalment towards the price of those units on 26-6-1962. It is further submitted by the petitioner that later on his representation to the Central Record Office, Lahore was approved and supplementary Entitlement Certificate (M. R. V.), dated 15-8.1962 for the remaining 610 units was issued and accordingly all the agricultural land originally allotted against 1016 P. I. Units was confirmed. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), respondent No, 2, however, by order dated 24-9-1970 cancelled and withdrew the excess 610 Units on the ground that supplementary M. R. V. (Entitlement Certificate) was a bogus document ane bad been obtained by fraud, and it was directed that the allotment show against the bogus M R. V. Be allotted to the oldest claimant of the area. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order but the same was dismissed on 16-8-71 on the ground of jurisdiction.
Later on the petitioner moved an application dated 18-8-1971 before the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sukkur praying that the petitioner being an old man would be in trouble if criminal proceedings were initiated against him and it was further requested that the surrendered land may be allowed to be purchased by the petitioner. This application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) by order, dated 6-10-1971 on the ground of jurisdiction, The petitioner filed a revision which came to be dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 6-11-1971. Hence this Constitutional Petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this petition the petitioner is not claiming that he was entitled to his entire claim of 1016 P. I. Units, although under the law he was entitled to all the units. The point that has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the request for purchase of balance 610 P. I. Units was wrongly rejected by the Settlement Authorities. According to the learned counsel, under no provision of law the petitioner could be deprived of his right of purchasing the surrendered land to the extent of 610 P. I. Units.
4. In law the petitioner may have made out a case but 'I find that in respect of the supplementary M. R. V. For 610 P. I. Units the finding of _the Settlement Authorities is that the said Supplementary Entitlement Certificate was a bogus document and had been obtained fraudulently by the petitioner and as such it has to be considered whether the petitioner should be granted relief if these proceedings under the constitutional jurisdiction. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the said fraud had not been committed by the petitioner, even if it is assumed that the Supplementary Entitlement Certificate had been obtained fraudulently by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to purchase the surrendered land as the factum of fraud relating to the Supplementary Entitlement Certificate was a different and distinct matter and it could not affect the right of the petitioner to acquire the surrendered land by purchase. I have found it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two matters are separate and distinct. Land had been granted to the petitioner and the same 'had been confirmed to the extent of 610 P.
1. A unit on the basis of Supplementary Entitlement Certificate and the finding that the said Supplementary Entitlement Certificate had been obtained fraudulently by the petitioner and that the said certificate was bogus has not been challenged by the petitioner. The cancellation of the land represented by 610 P. I. Units on the basis of the Supplementary Entitlement Certificate was, therefore, proper and although the petitioner may have a case under the law for purchasing the said land, as fraud had been committed in connection with the grant of these very lands, this Court will not grant him any relief under the constitutional jurisdiction. The fraud committed by the petitioner in the instant case cannot be bifurcated or ignored in order to give relief to the petitioner in these constitutional proceedings.
5. As a result Constitutional Petition No, 156 of 1974 is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Petition dismissed.