[27-9-1984].-- After I had reserved the judgment, I noticed that the respondent No,1 had been described as 'Deputy -Settlement Commissioner', and not as a 'Notified Officer'. Therefore, on 12-8- 1984, notice was issued to the Advocates for the parties for re-hearing on the point whether a writ can be issued against the respondent No,1, as Notified Officer who had passed the impugned 'order has not been joined as a party. At this stage, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the petition for adding the word 'Notified Officer', after the words 'Deputy Settlement Commissioner' in the title of the petition. It was also stated that Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed who passed the impugned order is a Deputy Settlement Commissioner and holds the same designation even after repeal of the Evacuee Laws. Notice of this application was issued to Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed. Mr. Abdul Nasir Khan Advocate has appeared on his behalf and consented to the grant of this application. Mr. Abdul Nasir Khan the learned counsel for the Notified Officer produced the Notification, dated 14-6-1980 which reads as follows:- "BOARD OF REVENUE (CENTRAL SETTLEMENT CELL) KARACHI.
Karachi, the 14th June, 1980.
' No SC K /80-A d n -774 . I n partial modification of Notification No,SCK /74-2048, dated 24th December, 1974 read with Notification No,SCK /77-1126, dated 4th September, 1977, the Government of Sind, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection 2 of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 is pleased to notify Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, (Grade-l7) Karachi, as the authorised officer for the him (sic) disposal of cases which may be transferred to/by the Member Board of Revenue (Incharge- Settlement Cell) or Settlement Commissioner Sind, for disposal, in accordance with the provisions of repealed Act of Regulation namely (1) the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation)
Act 1958 (2) Registration of Claim, (Displaced Persons) Act 1956 (3) The Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation Act, 1961 (4) Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 and recovery of price of evacuee property and Public Dues Regulation Act, 1971.
ALl MOHAMMAD G. SHAIKH.
' Secretary to Government of Sind, Member, Board of Revenue, (In charge Settlement Cell), Karachi.
' The learned counsel for the Notified Officer also produced a photo copy of an Evacuee Property (Residual Work) Disposal Rule 1978 in which it is provided that the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner means respectively an Additional Element Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner appointed unduly.' all or any of the Repealed Acts or in pursuance of these Rules. This shows that for the purpose of disposing of the work the nomenclature of Additional Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner was retained by the Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was in view of these facts that he had only stated as Deputy Settlement Commissioner and omitted to mention the Notified Officer.
' Mr.Abdul Nasir Khan the learned counsel for the Notified Officer also confirmed that Mr.- Mukhtar Ahmed Khan is also known as Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He further stated that besides this he has nothing to say on the merits of the main petition.
' Mr. Akhtar Mahmood the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the order was passed by the Notified Officer, and therefore, he should have been joined as a party, and in any event the application is belated, and if at all, it is granted, the petitioner should be burdened with cost. The omission to mention the words Notified Officer in the title of the petition was due to the Rules, and Notificates which were operating at that time, and it can be termed as a bona fide mistake. As the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has no objection to the grant of this application, I do not think any valid reason has been made out by the respondents No,2 to 6 for rejecting this application. So far the claim for cost is concerned, it may be pointed out that till the matter was finally argued this objection was never raised by the respondents and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they are not entitled to any cost. The application is granted.
The word Notified Officer should be added in the title of the petition with red ink.
[18-10-19841.--The petitioners who are the legal heirs of late S. Anwar Ali have challenged the order passed by the Notified Officer rejecting the NCH Forms filed by him and holding transfer in favour of one Mst. Saeeda Begum, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 as proper and valid. The matter was remanded to the respondent No, 1 by a judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 30th August, 1982 in which the petitioners predecessor S. Anwar Ali was the appellant, and the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were respondents. The facts as stated in the judgment of the Supreme Court are as follows:- "The dispute in this case relates to a property bearing No, MR-7/48-1I-404, situated in Weaver's Line, Khori Garden, Karachi. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the application of S. Anwar Ali issued to him Appendix IX, dated 19-11-1960, for R8.95,472. It was the case of Anwar All that he accepted the transfer, but since the price shown in the Appendix was exorbitantly high, he requested for its reduction, but his application was dismissed by order, dated 1-4-1961 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. He then filed an appeal, offering to pay Rs,50,000 as the transfer price for the property, but no orders were passed on this appeal, which was kept pending.
' According to him, however, without cancelling the transfer from his name, the property was included tenement wife in the auction held on 16-7-1968 and 5-9-1968 but each time no bid was made for the purchase of the same. It is pertinent to note that the reserved price of the property was fixed at Rs,45,600 in the auction proceedings which seems to have been in accordance with the real assessm ent of the price of the property. Thereafter, one Mst. Zubeda Abdus Sattar and others through their General Attorney filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for transfer of the property on payment of 50% of evaluation price which was fixed at Its.45,600 adjustable against certificate issued in favour of Mst.Saeeda Begum, since deceased, and succeeded by her legal representatives respondents Nos. 2 to 6. On the recommendation of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for transfer of the property at a reduced reserved price of Rs,22,800 the Additional Settlement Commissioner ordered the transfer on 20-11-1963 for the amount offered by Mst. Saeeda Begum. After the adjustment of the price, the P.T.D. was issued on IS 7 1969 in favour of Msl. 'Saeeda BeguM. Mst.Saeeda Begum then filed ejectment proceedings in March, 1972 against the appellant and according to him he came to know about the transfer in her favour for the first time on receipt of the notice of these proceedings. He, therefore, filed objections before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20--3-1972 which were dismissed on 1-4-1972, on the ground that since P.T.D. had already been issued in favour of Mst. Saeeda Begum, the Settlement Authorities had become functus officio. According to S. Anwar All he was informed about the passing of the order rejecting his objections on 11-4-1972 and on 20-5-1972 he filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was allowed and the transfer in his favour was upheld with a direction that the transfer price should be reduced to Rs,49,280 and that transfer in favour of Mst. Saeeda Begum be cancelled. Aggrieved by this order Mst. Saeeda Begum filed a revision application which was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 25-9-1973, agreeing with the view taken by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that after the issuance of P.T.D. in favour of Mst. Saeeda. The Settlement Authorities had become functus officio and ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter. The constitutional petition filed by S. Anwar Ali before the Sind High Court failed and was dismissed".
' The order passed by the High Court was challenged by S.Anwar Ali before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,K-149/80 which was allowed and the case was remanded with the following direction:- "In the result, this appeal succeeds and while setting aside the orders passed by the departmental authorities as well as the impugned order of the High Court, dated 28-4-1979, we direct that the case will be remitted for a fresh decision to the notified officer, appointed under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975 in the light of this judgment. It will be open to the concerned officer to take into consideration all the objections that the parties chose to raise before him and determine them according to law. In the circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs."
' The respondent's counsel has frankly conceded that if it is shown that the order of transfer on which P.T.D. is based was passed without' lawful authority then the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction is fully empowered to strike down the P.T.D. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the Deputy Settlement Commissioner before whom the proceedings were initiated did not go into the question whether the transfer in favour of the appellant was legally cancelled, and as already stated disposed of the matter on the question of jurisdiction. The Additional Settlement Commissioner also did not advert to this aspect of the case, and found nothing on record to indicate, whether any steps were taken to cancel the transfer in favour of the appellant and the property to have been properly resumed in accordance with the Settlement Scheme. But the objection against the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner was that the appeal before him was barred by limitation and no order for condo nation of the delay was passed by him. The learned Settlement Commissioner, once again did not enter the merits of the case including the question of the bar of limitation in intersect of the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner but disposed of the case on the question of jurisdiction". The case was remanded with direction to dispose of in the light of observation made in the judgment.
' The respondent No,1 by the impugned order rejected the NCH Form issued in favour of S. Anwar Ali, and maintained the transfer made in favour of Saeeda Begum. The respondent No,1 has observed in the order that it seems that an Appendix, dated 19-11-1960 was issued to S. Anwar Ali but was not on record, and no PTO was issued to him. It was further noted that Anwar Ali had filed an application, dated 30th March, 1961 admitted that Appendix IX was issued to him for Rs,95,472 as transfer price of the building, and he had prayed that the time for payment of price be extended. It was ordered that he should pay the price, through Association by 16-4-1961 but neither it was paid nor there was anything on record to show that he applied for further extention.
' Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on paragraph 2 and 24 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab.) Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and scheme No, 1 contended that on default to pay the price or installment Appendix IX is not automatically cancelled. According to para. 2(a) house in possession of a non-claimant displaced person which he desires to retain shall be transferred to him on payment of prevailing market value. Paragraph 24 of the Schedule provides that if any person who has been allowed to pay in installments fails to pay two consecutive instalments the Chief Settlement Commissioner or any other person authorized on his behalf may give notice to pay the arrears within 30 days with penal interest failing which the transfer of property in favour of such person shall be liable to cancellation and he shall be liable to ejectment. Under para. 24 (2) the Chief Settlement Commissioner is authorised to restore the property provided he pays the amount due with penal interest. Scheme No,1 provides a procedure for transfer of house and shop to persons in possession. Para. 4 prescribes the entitlement of persons who can file NCH Form. After the entitlement of the applicant and value of the property has been determined the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in terms of para. 29 shall send a notice of transfer as specified in Appendix IX requiring him to comply with the direction contained in the notice within a period of 15 days. If the proposed transferee appears and after adjustment of the amount of deferred payment any sum remains payable the Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall fix the amount of installments in cash to be paid on due dates and hand over to him the Installment Order as specified in Appendix XI and Provisional Transfer Order in forum specified in Appendix XII. Sub-para. 5 of para. 28 of Scheme No,1 provides that if after service of notice of Transfer the transferee-in-possession does not appear the Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall presume that the transferee desires to retain the property on payment of price cash without utilizing the Compensation Book. On that basis the Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall issue the installment order in Appendix XI and P.T.O. in Appendix XII. In this regard para. 34, 35 and 36 are also relevant which show that the installment is to be paid in 12 monthly installments failing which the transferee can be ejected after notice, but possession can be restored on payment of the due amount as well as the interest within 60 days.
' Mr. Akhtar Mahmood the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 to 6 contended that mere notice of transfer does not confer any right on the applicant unless Provisional Transfer Order has been issued.
' Mr. Akhtar Mahmood has referred to Mst. Bakho v. Mst. Saire PLD 1963 Lah. 72 where after referring to Scheme No,1 and permanent Transfer Rules, it was observed that "the simple fact that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had passed an order of transfer on 30th December, 1959 will not by itself take the property out of the compensation pool as contemplated in section 10 of the Act and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this section was a bar to the entertainment of the application of the respondent is, therefore, not tenable. The learned counsel wanted to show that the order of transfer passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner does not amount to a transfer itself and it does not create any ight in the Appendix holder. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to Murree Hill Transport Company Ltd. v. Ghulam Jeelani PLD 1970 Lah.
864 and Ataul Haq and two others v. H. Electric Company PLD 1971 Lah.
1007. All these cases relate to the right of a transferee with relation to section 30 of the Act and his right to eject the tenant from the property. t.11 these authorities no doubt hold that unless P.T.O. is issued a person does not become a transferee of the house, but there is nothing to indicate what are the rights of a person holding Appendix IX. According to the learned counsel for the respondent such person does not have any right in the property.
From the Act and the Scheme relevant provisions of which have been summarized above, it is clear that a person who is entitled to also transfer and Appendix IX has been issued has a right to claim the transfer of that property on fulfillment of the conditions specified in Appendix IX. As contemplated by the Act his right for transfer of the property will have priority over the rights of other persons claiming transfer of the same property. Scheme I and the Schedule to the Act do not specifically provide that on non-payment of price Appendix IX will be automatically cancelled.
Under the Scheme if in pursuance of notice of transfer the applicant does not appear before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner then it shall be presumed that he has agreed to pay the price in cash and the instilment order in Appendix XI and P.T.O. shall be issued in his favour. Therefore, on such default he is deprived of the opportunity of utilizing the payment through Compen sation Book, but the presumption is that he wants to retain the property. The consequences of non-payment of the price are that a notice is to be issued to him and if he fails to pay the price with penal interest he is liable to be ejected. The provisions of law have shown such leniency that even after ejectment opportunity has been provided to such applicant to apply for restoration of possession within 60 days and make the payment with penal interest, whereupon the house shall be restored to him.
This clearly demonstrates that the intention of the legislature is not to easily disturb entitlement and possession of the holder of Appendix 4X. The object of the Act is to rehabilitate a person and not to disturb or eject without reasonable cause or justification. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Mohammad Moosa V. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 3 others 1974 SCMR 352 where it has been held that "sub para. 1 of para. 24 of the Schedule makes the auction sale only liable to cancellation, and there cannot be any automatic cancellation, and the matter rested with the discretion of the appropriate authority, whether or not, to cancel the auction of the sale on the default in payment of any instalment within the due date". It was further held that "expression liable to cancellation envisages an application of mind by the appropriate authority who had discretion in that behalf". The learned counsel also referred to Muhammad Umar Khan v. Chief Settlement Commissioner Pakistan and others PLD 1963 Pesh. 85 where para. 4 of the Schedule to the Act read with Settlement Scheme No,V was under consideration, and it was held that the word 'transfer' in para. 4 is not to be understood in the sense of a final and complete transaction of an alienation of the proeeft4t, but in the sense of transfer of a claimant subject to the severed Provision of the Act. From these authorities it is clear that even Miere a notice of transfer has been issued to have applicant some right is conferred on him creating interest in the transfer of the property, and such notice of transfer is not automatically cancelled on failure to pay the price. In the absence of any provision for automatic cancellation for non payment of price within the specified date on mere default in payment Appendix IX will not stand cancelled. If Appendix is not invalidated or ceases to have legal effect on non-payment, the question arises whether, the property in respect of which it has been issued can be made available for transfer by auction or otherwise?
' Mr.Akhtar Mahmood the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in Appendix IX issued to S. Anwar Ali a condition was added that in case the Appendix holder fails to pay the instalments the premises will be auctioned. The learned counsel contended that this was a sufficient notice to the petitioner, and therefore, on failure to pay the instilment it was available for auction. Admittedly Appendix IX is issued in a prescribed Form under Settlement Scheme No,1 which prescribes the conditions. A procedure for issuance of Appendix IX, XI and P.T.O., and consequences for non-payment of installments have been specifically provided. It does not provide that in case of failure to pay the instilment, the property shall be put to auction. The addition of such a condition in the appendix IX by inserting it by hand by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is completely illegal, and he has no authority to insert a condition, which has not been prescribed by the Scheme or the Act. Therefore, the condition for auction on failure to pay the installment was not binding on the petitioner's predecessor Anwar Ali.
' The properties which could be auctioned have been dealt with by ' Scheme No,VIII. It defines the words "available property" as follows: - "Available properties means, houses, shops, buildings, sites, industrial concerns, and cinema houses (whether allotted by the Industries Rehabilitation Board or not) and big mansions and hotels whiCh have not yet been transferred to any person or which may in future become available for transfer on presumption made under Chapter 11 of this Scheme".
' Paragraph 2 of the Scheme VIII requires a transferee, who has defaulted in payment of two consecutive installments and where no instilment has been allowed, has defaulted in payment of transfer price, requiring him to pay the whole of the outstanding amount. Such demand is to be issued by registered post A/D., and acknowledgment due receipt when received back from the addressee is required to be pasted on the file of the demand notice. After such notice has been served in this manner, if payment is not made as specified in the demand notice the Competent Authority will cancel the transfer of the property forfeit 25$ of the amount paid and resume the property by ejecting the defaulter. It is further provided that a copy of the order will be sent to the defaulter by post. Para. 3A provides that within 30 days of the order of cancellation, the defaulter may apply for setting aside the order and on payment of price in lump sum, property may be restored to him provided in the meantime, it has not been auctioned or transferred to any other person. According to para. 4 it is after the cancellation of transfer that the property will be available for disposal in the manner prescribed in the Scheme. These provisions of Scheme No,VIII clearly establish that the property will not be available for transfer or auction unless the transfer is cancelled and due notice has been served on the transferee. No such notice was served on the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Akhtar Mahmood that the word transferee used in para. 2 of the Scheme and cancellation of transfer of property in para. 3(1) (a) refers to transfer to such persons to whom P.T.O. or P.T.D. has been issued. I am not inclined to give a narrow interpretation to the word transferee because if it was intended to cover transfer by P.T.O. or where transferee had paid instilments then it would have been specifically stated in it. Para. 2 requires notice to be issued to such transferees whom installment has not been granted and have defaulted in payment of price.
Therefore, it is not necessary that only P.T.O. holders are to be treated as transferees. The word transferee is therefore used in a wider sense to include even such persons to whom Appendix IX has been issued. Admittedly the procedure laid down by Scheme No,VIII has not been followed, therefore, the property was not available for auction.
Mr. Akhtar Mahmood the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that no reference can be made to Scheme No,Vlll as it Was enforced on 16-11-1965. According to the learned counsel the case is to be governed by the law applicable in the year 1960-61 and not in the year 1965. The admitted position is that the property was transferred to the respondent on 30-11-1968 when Scheme No,V111 was in force, therefore, the entitlement of respondents No,2 to 6 or the availability of the property could have been decided only with reference to the provisions of Scheme No, VIII and not with reference to any other provision.
' The learned counsel for the respondents referred to para. 4 of E the Schedule to the Act which provides that a house not transferred under paragraphs, 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall be sold to the highest bidder in an unrestricted public auction. According to the learned counsel as the petitioner failed to pay the price the Settlement Authorities could have auctioned the property as far back as in the year 1961 under paragraph 6 of the Schedule. This argument is based on the reasoning that due to non-payment of price by S. Anwar Ali the notice of transfer automatically stood cancelled. As discussed above, the legal position is otherwise, and the properly was not auctioned under para. 6 of the Schedule. As the property was put to auction in 1968 the provisions of Scheme No,V111 were applicable and the disputed property was not available for transfer.
' Mr.Akhtar Mahmood the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the action suffers from laches and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel has pointed out that on 30-3-1961 the petitioner had filed an application for extension of time for making payment and the petitioner was allowed to make payment till 2-11-1965 but as no payment was made, the respondent purchased the property by negotiation. It was further contended that the respondent is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and has paid full price as far back as on 22nd November, 1968 and P.T.D. was issued on 15-7-1969 and it was only when the ejectment case was filed against the petitioner that he started agitating the matter. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 contended that the demand of justice is not to issue a writ against the respondent . lie further contended that as held in Abul Ala Maududi's case PLD 1964 SC 673 "the function of judicial review is to act as a check against excess of power in derogation of private right, not to supplement them. Accordingly if on a point of law, the Administration has adopted a construction which is possible one, the Court will support the action". The principles laid down in PLD 1964 SC 673 and PLD 1975 SC 331 clearly indicate the limits and the jurisdiction within which the superior Court can exercise the Constitutional Jurisdiction. However, in the present case, the question, whether the property could have been transferred t Mst. Saeeda Begum cannot be decided in the affirmative and the action of the Settlement Authorities cannot be justified, therefore, as the action of the Settlement Authorities to transfer the property to Saeeda Begum is void and not in accordance with law. Nor. Court would I like to support it in derogation to the petitioner's right in the property. No doubt there has been some delay on the part of the petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not proper to disentitle him from the relief sought by him. It is true that a writ cannot be issued in aid of injustice, but merely because, the respondent No,2 claims to be the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, th rights of the petitioner cannot be superseded, because, he is in possession of the property, and has taken all steps from the very beginning for its transfer, but it seems that due to the actions taken by the Settlement Authorities he has been deprived of his valuable right. At this stage it would be advantageous to refer to the following passage from the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v.
Labor Union PLD 1967 SC 513:- to place a true construction upon laws and legal instruments of all kinds is the special and peculiar responsibility of the superior Court, and if a subordinate judicial or quasi-judicial authority should be found to have placed an untenable construction upon a legal instrument, which is in operation as between citizens, the special responsibilities of these Courts is attracted for rectifying the matter. The exercise of lawful authority is subject to the necessity of interpretation of a law which is being applied, and where that is wrongly interpreted the action cannot be otherwise than devoid of lawful authority".
The Settlement Authorities and the respondent No,1 have not correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of law relating to the legal right of the petitioner as holder of appendix IX and passed the order of transfer in favour of Saeeda Begum in complete disregard of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Reh.) Act and Scheme framed under it. I, therefore, declare that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No,.1 without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. I direct that proper transfer order in respect of the disputed property be issued in favour of the petitioners if they comply with conditions of the transfer.
' The parties to bear their own costs.
Petition allowed.
1984 M L I) 1000 (Karachi] Before Muhammad Zahoorul Hag and Ajmal Mian, JJ Mst. SALEEM KIIATOON and another--Petitioners versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/AUTHORISED OFFICER and 2 others--Respondents Constitutional Petitions Nos: S.91, 96 and 102 of 1978, decided on 21st October, 1984.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art.199--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ka. (XIV of 1975), S.2-- Cancellation of allotment of agricultural land- -Deputy Commissioner and Authorised Officer finding that survey numbers allotted to claimant were actually Nagabuli land belonging to Government, that VII-A of Deh showing that land had been fraudulently changed in name of Central Government and entries made in V.F.VI1 were in different ink and different handwriting- Allotment of land obtained by fraudulent means, misrepresentation of facts and forgery committed in record-of -rights-- Allotment in favour of claimant, held, wrong and illegal ab initio--Title of person claiming through said allottee also null and void. [pp. 1004,10071 A & D
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art.199--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2-- Cancellation of allotment--Land, allotted to claimant, Naqabuli Government land obtained by fraudulent means and forgery in record-of-rights--Deputy Commissioner coming to this conclusion after perusal of Rehabilitation Record and finding that land in question not entered in Register of record--Perusal of V.F'.VI & VII also showing that there were interpolations, cuttings and overwritings and different ink and handwriting used while making forgery--V.F.VIII of Deh indicating that land fraudulently changed in name of evacuee--Order of cancellation passed by Deputy Commissioner maintained in circumstances.
[pp. 1004,1005, 10091 , A2 & J
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- - --Art.199--Constitutional jurisdiction--High Court cannot go into disputed question of fact upon which particular finding arrived at by authority below. [p. 1007] B
(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 199--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)-- Constitutional jurisdiction--Finding of fact against petitioners that land in dispute was Naqabuli land and that it was not acquired as evacuee land arrived at upon reasonable evidence--Finding, held, binding on all petitioneRs, [p. 10071 C & D
(e) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- - --S.2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Cancellation of allotment--Respondent's application before Settlement Commissioner at time of repeal of Act XLVII of 1958--Settlement Commissioner assuming jurisdiction in matter on remand of case from High Court and order of High Court not challenged by petitioner in Supreme Court--Settlement Commissioner, held, competent to proceed with case and pass impugned order. [p. 10081E
(f) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- - --S.2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Cancellation of allotment--Deputy Commissioner and Authorised Officer while coming to conclusion that land allotted to claimant was Nagabuli land and not an evacuee property taking into consideration R.L.2 Register and report of Assistant Commissioner and also perusing record namely V .F.V1 and V .F.V11--Deputy Commissioner taking into consideration relevant documents which he had right and privilege to consider and, therefore, he was entitled to reach conclusion that land allotted to claimant was Naqabuli land and not evacuee. [p. 100 81 F
(g) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- - --S.2(2)--Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Cancellation of allotment--Finding of Deputy Commis sioner that land in dispute Naqabuli Government land based on V.F.VI as well as implied admission on part of petitioner which he made when he accepted lease of disputed land from Government as Naqabuli land--Petitioner, held, estopped from challenging position of land as Naqabuli and claim it as an evacuee property.
(p. 1008) G
(h) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- - --S. 2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Naqabuli land--Land in question a Katcha land and its nature liable to change in different times--Finding that it was a Naqabuli land in 1957 and continued to be so till 1968 when it was leased out by Government as such land, held, makes it probable that it was Naqabuli land and hence it could not be acquired by Central Government. [p.
10091 Hi
(i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- - --Art. 199--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)-- Constitutional jurisdiction--Deputy Commis sioner ordering cancellation of allotment of claimant-- High Court would not interfere with order of Deputy Commissioner merely because it was not correct or that another view on evidence could be taken.
[pp. 1000, 1001] H2
(j) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persona Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- 2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (197'3), Art.199--Cancellation of allotment--Factum that claimant was shown as 26 years of age in power of-attorney making it doubtful that he could be a direct claimant of agricultural land left in India in 1947 and he was likely to have been born only in 1947 because power--of-attorney was given in 1973--Deputy Commissioner issuing a direct notice to claimant to appear before him but he neither appeared before him nor before High Court claimant's affidavit in High Court sworn only by his attorney without giving any explanation about his age--Held, this position would make allotment in favour of claimant very su-sTilFious and order of Deputy Commissioner cancelling allotment of land of claimant justified in circumstances.
[p. 1009j H3
(k) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- -- -S. 2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Cancellation of allotment--Land allotted to claimant cancelled by Deputy Commissioner as same was Naqabuli Government land and not evacuee property--Order of cancellation passed after due notice to claimant and Deputy Commis sioner making it clear that claimant could not dispose of land to his `---ee who was also represented before Deputy Commissioner and did not challenge his order-- Order of Deputy Commissioner, held, attained finality as against transferee claiming through claimant.
[p. 100'J1 I Imam Ali G. Kazi for PetitioneRs, Abdul Naseer Khan for Respondents.
Abdul Sattar Shaikh,A.A.-G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th September, 1984.
' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ,J.--The petitioner in these three petitions, namely, Mst. Saleem Khatoon, All Muhammad and lmtiaz Ali, in Petitions Nos.91/78, 96/78 and 102/78 respectively, have challenged the orders of Deputy Commissioner and Authorised Officer, Nawabshah, who had allowed the application of Imam Bux (respondent No,3 in all the three petitions) and cancelled the allotment of agricultural land in Deh Kaka, Taluka Sakrand, which had been made in favour of Syed Ishtiaq Ali, the predecessor of the two petitioners, in Petition No,91/78 and of claimant Abdul Hamid the predecessor-of-petitioners in Petitions Nos.96/78 and 102/78 respectively, as the allotments were held to have been obtained by fraudulent means and were based upon forgery committed in the .record of rights. The judgments of all the cases are almost identical hence they are being decided by this common judgment.
' The relevant facts of the three petitions are briefly stated as follows:- Constitutional Petition No, 91 of 1978
2. Respondent Imam Bux applied to the Chief Minister of Sind, in 1974 alleging that 373 Acres of Government Naqabuli land have been allotted to the claimants fraudulently. Thereupon enquiries were made and the allotment made on 4-2-1976 in favour of Syed Ishtiaq Ali was cancelled.
However, Mst. Saleem Khatoon, petitioner filed Writ Petition No,133/76 in the High Court on the ground that she had not been heard although she 4ad purchased the land from the said claimant Syed Ishtiaq Ali. The High Court set aside the order of cancellation of allotment, on 20th October, 1977, and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, for decision on merits.
3. Before the Deputy Commissioner a reference was made to a partnership deed between Syed Mansoorul Hasan and All Muhammad Rahu attorney of Mst. Saleem Khatoon, dated 30th June, 1968 where the parties had agreed to acquire agricultural land on lease from Government and other private parties to start food and fodder growing agricultural farm. In the said partnership deed All Muhammad Rahu was shown to be in possession of agricultural land by way of lease measuring 345 Acres situated in Deh Kaka, Taluka Sakrand, which was declared as Naqabuli.
4. On 15-6-1972 the land measuring 173.32 Acres in dispute was allotted by the Chairman Allotment Committee, Moro, in favour of claimant Syed lshtiaq All vide Parchi Taqseem Khatooni, dated 15-6- 1972 and later on 11-1-1973 Dhani Bux attorney of Syed Ishtiaq All secured mutation order in respect of the said land.
5. Imam Bux, respondent, had claimed that land had been lying barren since last 40 years and that he had developed the land after the same had been allotted to him as Naqabuli land in 1968.
6. The matter was argued before the Deputy Commissioner and he held that the allotment of the land by the Chairman Allotment Committee had not been correctly made as the said Chairman Mr. lmdadullah Unar had certified by a letter, dated 22-1-1975 that the allotment did not bear his signature and that it was bogus and forged. He further held that All Muhammad Rahu the husband of the Petitioner Mst. Saleem jKhatoon who is also the father of petitioner Ali Bux had clearly admitted in the partnership deed entered into by him with Manzoorul Hassan that it was Naqabuli land and it had been leased out on long terms. The Deputy Commissioner also took note of the fact that there was interpolation in V.F.V11, A and that the Assistant Commissioner, Sakrand, had given the details of the interpolation made in V.F.V11, A at entry No,87/2 where S.Nos. 212 to 236 had been added later on whereas originally there was only S.No,'64' written in the name of Asanmal and 3 otheRs, It was also noted that at entry No,68 of V.F. VII-A. S. Nos.237 to 240 and 261 to 272 were added to the original S. No,459 in the name of Naval Rai and 7 others and Survey Nos. 606 and 610 were over lined with different ink. At entry No,87/2 of V .F.V11- B, S. No,459, was original but other 18 survey numbers were added by forgery and S. Nos.606 and 610 had been cut by putting a line across them and some were shown in the name of the Central Government. The report had further stated that entry No,99 of V.F.VII-A originally S. No,303 was in the name of Hindu Khatedars Mooranmal Tekchand and 5 others but 23 other survey numbers including S. No,274 were added to this entry. It was also pointed out that in other entries Survey No,297 had been shown at 2 entries to be the property of Mooranmal and others.
The Deputy Commissioner also found that V.F.VI of Deh Kaka for 1957 shows that the survey numbers allotted to the claimant Syed lshtiaq Ali were actually Naqabuli land belonging to Government and that V .F.VII-A of Deh Kaka showed that the land has been fraudulently changed in the name of the Central Government as the entries made in V.F.VII are in different ink and in different handwriting. The Deputy Commissioner took note of the fact that one of the 2 copies of V .F.V11-B in respect of entry No,87/2 produced on behalf of Mst. Saleem A' Khatoon in the High Court had actually not been signed by Abdul Qadir Ansari whose signature it allegedly bore because Abdul Qadir Ansari had clearly stated in his statement on 20-3-1978 that he had not A signed that certified copy on 14-1-1975. The Deputy Commissioner finally came to the conclusion that Survey Nos.227 to 290 and 261 to 267 measuring 106.16 Acres in Deh Kaka, Taluka Sakrand, are Government Naqabuli land and the allotment thereto was obtained by fraudulent means, misrepresentation of facts and forgery was committed in the record of rights and, therefore, the allotment made in favour of the claimant Syed Ishtiaq All was a in to, wrong, illegal and, therefore, it was cancelled and since Mst. Saleem Khatoon had obtained land through claimant whose title was void, therefore, her title was also null and void and the mutation made in favour of the claimant and subsequent purchasers should be cancelled.
Constitutional Petition No, 96 of 1978:
7. Survey Nos. 274 to 277, 276 to 289, 294, 298, 300, 301, 606, 610 and 494 of Deh Kaka Taluka Sakrand were allotted to claimant Abdul Hamid on 5-5-1973 measuring 163.07 Acres.
' On the other hand in the year 1967 the Government of West Pakistan had published a schedule of Naqabuli Government land for disposal situated in the same Deh Kaka. The same included S. Nos.261 to 263, 279 to 282, 274 to 277, 279, 286 to 288, 292 to 294, 298, 300, 301, 534, 562, 587, 658,
659. Out of these 128.17 Acres was granted to Imam Bux, respondent for 10 years and 103.5 Acres were granted to Petitioner Ali Muhammad Rahu for the same period and possession.That entry No,65 of V .F.V11 A , S. No, 64 was originally written was delivered to the lessee. Petitioner Ali Muhammad Rahu entered into a partnership with Syed Manzoorul Hasan dated 30-6-1968 where All Muhammad R hu had shown that he was in possession of land measuring 345 Acres si uated in the same Deh.
' Respondent Imam Bux moved an application in 1974 for cancellation of allotment f Abdul Humid and Syed Ishtiaq All on the basis that the allotments o Naqabuli survey numbers as an evacuee property could not have b en made, that the same had been procured by making interpolation with V.F.V11 of Deli Kaka and that forged power of attorney in Ithe names of claimants Abdul Ilanud and Syed Islitiaq Ali had been procured and 105.25 Acres of land were sold .to Imtiaz All son of Ghultim Muhammad Tapedar and 157.22 Acres to All Muhammad Rahu and that since the land had been treated as Naqabuli Government land in 1947 and had never been treated as evacuee property, therefore, it could not be allotted as evacuee property. The Deputy Commissioner had original decided the said application on 16-1-1975 and had allowed the same b t only Abdul Humid and Imtiaz Ali had been made as opponents. Ali Muhammad Petitioner filed C.P.140/76 in the High Court which was allowed on 6-10-1977 on the ground of breach of principle of natural justice and the case was remanded to Deputy Commissioner for disposal. T e impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 27-7-197 after hearing Imam Bux, All Muhammad Rahu and Imtiaz Ali and claimant Abdul timid through Dhani Bux, attorney. The Deputy Commissioner again held that the allotment in favour of Abdul Humid had been obtained by fraudulent means and forgery is committed in the record of rights and, therefore, it was a initio wrong and was, therefore, cancelled.
Since Abdul Humid had disposed of the lands to Imtiaz All and All Muhammad Rahu therefore the same was also held as null and void and entries made in favour of the claimants and subsequent purchasers were ordered to be cancelled.
8. The larder of the Deputy Commissioner shows that it was passed after perusing the Rehabilitation Record. The finding is that the land in question is not entered in the Land Register as evacuee property. The Deputy Commissioner also took into consideration the fact that. Abdul Hamid who claimed to be a direct claimant had given a power of attorney to I Dhani Bux on 19-3- 1973 where the age of Abdul Hamid is shown as 26 years but it was not explained as to why it was so. He took note of the fact that the claimant Abdul Hamid had been summoned to appear before him on the address given in the claim filed but he had failed to appear. This finding of the Deputy Commissioner shows that claimant Abdul Humid had just been born in 1947 as he was 26 years on 19-3-1974 and, therefore, direct claim of Abdul Bairiki appears to be rather suspicious.
9. The Deputy Commissioner had come to the finding after perusal V .F.VI and VII that there were interpolation cuttings and over writings in the record-of-rights and that different ink and handwriting had been used while making forgeries in the record. The Deputy Commis sioner also) took note of the fact that the land in question had been declared a Naqabuli in the year 1968 and allotted to Ali Muhammad Rahu petitioner as such and, therefore, it proved that this land was Naqabuli land. The Deputy Commissioner in his findings about the interpolations in V .F.V11 relied upon the report of the Assistant Commis sioner, Sakrand, dated 30th March, 1978, where it is shown in the name of Assanmal and 3 others but subsequently S. Nos. 212 to 236 have been interpolated while at entry No,87/2 of V.F.VII-B, S. No,64 is original, but other 25 survey numbers have forgedly been added in the name of Nawalrai and 7 otheRs, While S. Nos.237 to 240, 261 to 272(1) have been included and S. Nos.606 and 610 which were written, have been overlined with different ink. While in the names of Nawalrai and others, but other 18 S. Nos. have been added forcedly. S. Nos. 606 and 610 have now been out and put a line across the same and shown in the name of Central Government. He has further reported in V .F.VII-A vide entry No,99 S. No,303 (Original) seems to be entered in the names of Hindu Khatedars Moranmal s/o Tec hand and 5 others but S. Nos.274 and others in all 23 have been added. In other entries S. No,297 has been shown at two entries that is of Manama and others and Gopandram and others respectively."
' The Deputy Commissioner took further note of the fact that the true copy of entry No,87/2 of V.F.VII-B in respect of land in Deh Kaka in the name of Central Government which had been produced by Ali Muhammad Rahu petitioner in the High Court had been denied to have been signed by Abdul Qadir Ansari in his statement of 20--3-1978 who had stated that his signature shown on the true copy was a forged one.
10. The village Form VI of Deli Kaka was also relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner and the same showed that the survey numbers allotted to claimant Abdul Humid were actually Naqabuli lands belonging to the Government whilst V .F.VIII of the same Deh showed that the land had been fraudulently changed in the name of evacuee as the entries made therein were in different ink and different handwriting and hence the impugned order. C.P. No, 102 of 1978:
11. The position of Imtiaz All petitioner in C.P. No,102/78 is that on 19-5-1973, he purchased 275, 276, 286 to 288, 292, 297, 298, 300 and 301, measuring a total area of 105.25 Acres from claimant Abdul Humid through the attorney, Dhani Bux. He has, however, not taken any allotment of Naqabuli land from Government. However, since the allotment in favour of Abdul Humid is the basis of his entitlement and the same has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, on 27-7- 1978 hence the transfer by Abdul Hatnid of the property in favour of lmtiaz Ali is at par with that of Ali Muhammad Rahu.
12. In respect of Petition No,91/78, Mr. Imam All Kazi had submitted that the application of Imam Bux having been made only on 24-8-1974, the same was barred under section 2(2), of the Repealing Act, 1975 which had been given retrospective effect from 1-7-1974. However, in this respect it would be useful to refer to paragraph 8 of counter affidavit of Imam Bux dated 26-1-1984 where he has produced photo stat copies of letter of Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah to Mukhtiarkar, Sakrand where it is shown that application was presented by Imam Bux before Prime Minister on 8-1-1971 and another letter is also produced which is dated 20-1-1974 and, therefore, it is obvious that Imam Bux had moved his application on 18-1-1974 before the Prime Minister. It is, therefore, obvious that his application dated 24-8-1974 moved before the Chief Minister was merely in continuation of his old application and, therefore, the proceedings in respect of this property should be deemed to have continued pending from 18-1-1974 hence this objection is over ruled.
' In this respect of the objection about the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner it would be pertinent to point out that the case of Imam Bux had been remanded by the High Court for consideration to the Deputy Commissioner by order, dated 16-10-1977 and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 27-7-1978 was passed in pursuance of a direction of the High Court and was, therefore, competently passed by it. I am clearly of the view that the petitioners before me had never raised the question of the application by Imam Bux before the Deputy Commissioner to be without jurisdiction till 16-10-1977 and that even if they had raised the same then the High Court has disallowed that objection and the petitioners having never challenged the order of the High Court for remand of the case to the Deputy Commissioner the petitioners are not entitled to raise that issue now.
'
13. Mr Imam AD Kazi also contended that the V.F.VII produced by the petitioner should have been relied upon as the same showed plat the disputed land belonged to the Central Government.
However, in this respect we have a definite finding of fact from the Deputy Commis sioner who has come to the conclusion that there was interpolation in V.F.V11 in respect of the various entries which have been noted above and this finding of the Deputy Commissioner is supported by a report from Assai tent Commissioner, Sakrand. The finding is also supported by entire in V.F.VI and, therefore, it is not possible for this Court to go into the disputed questions of fact which have been gone into at length by the Deputy Commissioner and he has arrived at a particular finding in respect of that.
14. I may here observe that the disputed land is a Katcha land and, therefore, the finding that it was shown as Naqabuli land in 1957 and was allotted as such in 1968 cannot be seriously questioned. It is an admitted position that this land was allotted in 1968, as Naqabuli land to Imam Bux respondent as well as to All Muhammad Rahu, who is himself petitioner in Petition No,96/78 and is also the husband and father respectively of the two petitioners in Petition No,91/78 and also their attorney. Since Ali Muhammad Rahu has himself taken lease of these lands as Naqabuli land from Government, therefore, petitioners in Petitions Nos.91/78 and 96/78 are really estopped from challenging the position that the land was a Naqabuli land ' It has been found as a fact that this land was not shown in the R.L.2 register as an evacuee land and its character in 1957 was of a Naqabuli land as shown in Village Form VI, therefore, it could not be Naqabuli land evacuee property and it could not have been acquired by the Central Government in 1959 as an evacuee property. The finding that it was a and in 1957 is again a finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy commissioner reasonable evidence and hence it is binding upon all the Petitioners.
Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner having clearly held that the allotment of land in favour of Syed Ishtiaq Ali had not been signed by Imdadullah Unar the then Chairman of the Allotment Committee and that his signature are was forged is a finding of fact which has not even been challenged by the petitioner except that it had been stated that Imdadullah Unar made his statement about the forgery of his signatures under influence of the then Chief Minister. Therefore, the factum oil lmdadullah Unar having denied his signatures on the allotment which is the basis of the case of the petitioners in Petition No,91/78, the very allotment vanishes, and hence the finding that the allotment had been obtained by bogus means is a finding of unexceptionable nature and this alone is a complete answer to Petition No,91/78.
16. In respect of C.P.96/78, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Authorized Officer had no jurisdiction to take up the application of Imam Bux as Act XIV of 1975, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act, 1975 which had been made retrospective from 1st July, 1974 had merely provided the transfer of proceedings pending on 1-7-1974 but the application of Imam Bux was made on 24-8-1974 and hence it was not covered by section 22 of the said Act, XIV of 1975. This submission is not justified in view of the fact that Imam Bux respondent in his affidavit presented on 29-1-1984 in this Court has stated in para. 11 that he had filed a revision application much before the repeal of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958 and the said revision application was pending before the Settlement Commissioner at the time of the repeal of the act arid that he had laid information before the respondent No,1 as Additional Settlement Commissioner, Land, as a delegates of Chief Settlement Commissioner, regarding bogus and fraudulent allotment. Since this position adopted by the respondent Imam Bux appears to be correct hence the respondent No,1 had the jurisdiction to decide the case as an Authorized Officer. Moreover, the Supreme Court has assumed th jurisdiction on remand of the case from the High Court which was mad on a petition of this petitioner himself and it was never challenged before the Supreme Court, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner had the authority to proceed with the case and pass the impugned order.
The learned counsel then contended that no person had been examined by the Deputy Commissioner and hence there was no evidence before him. This contention has no force. The Deputy commissioned has taken into consideration the R.L.2 register which did not show that the land in question was an evacuee property and he has further taken into consideration the report submitted by the Assistant Commis sioner, Sakrand, showing interpolations in V.F.VII and he has also perused the records before him namely V.F.VI and V.F.VI1 and he has found that there were in fact interpolations in the record and, therefore, the said finding is not open to question before me as the Deputy Commissioner was the competent person who could come to a conclusion in respect of the interpolations in the record of 'rights. Moreover, he has taken into consideration V.F.VI which he had the right and privilege to consider and he had found discrepancies between V ,F.VI and V.F. VII and, therefore, he was entitled to reach the conclusion that he had reached
17. I find that the finding that it was a Naqabuli land is based upon V.F.VI as well as the implied admission on the part of Ali Muhammad Rahu which he made when he accepted the lease of the disputed land in 1968 from the Government as Naqabuli land. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 91/78 and 96/78 are estopped from challenging the said position as Ali Muhammad Rahu had himself taken the lease of the Naqabuli land and, therefore, it was not open to him to challenge that position and to claim that it was an evacuee property.
18. The land in question being a liatcha land its nature was liable to change in different times and, therefore, the finding that it was a Naqabuli land in 1957 and continued as such till 1968 when it was leased out by the Government as Naqabuli land makes it probable that it was Naqabuli land and hence it could not be acquired by the Central Government.
' The counsel then contended that documents Isl to 1-3 of the Petition No, 96/78, had been left out of consideration. This submission is not correct. The Deputy Commissioner has taken into consideration the deed of 1906 and Nab come to the conclusion that it is too old and in respect of record of 1912 he has observed that these copies were of 1912 and the petitioners had failed to prove their case by producing the subsequent changes in the record of rights. Therefore, the submission that the Deputy Commissioner has not token these documents into consideration is not entirely correct. The Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction to make a decision and he has done so. This Court cannot interfere with that order merely because it was not correct or that another view of the evidence could be taken. In any case even if documents referred to by the learned counsel which are three sale-deeds of 1906 and 1914 had been taken into consideration the position would not have been any different because the petitioners had to prove that the land was actually not Naqabuli in 1947 and that the same position had continued in 1957 to 1959 but the petitioners failed to prove these contentions and, therefore, the order of the respondent No,1 appears to be justified in circumstances of the case. Moreover, the factum that claimant Abdul Hamid was shown as 26 years of age in the power of attorney given by him to Dhani Hux makes it rather doubtful that he could be a direct claimant of agricultural land left in India in 1947 and he was likely to have been born only in 1947, because the power of attorney was given in 1973 and the same showed his age to be 26 yeaRs, Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner had issued a direct notice to Abdul Hamid claimant but he did not appear before him nor has that claimant Abdul Hamid appeared before me in this petition in spite of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner had expressed himself strongly on this aspect of the case. Even in this Court an affidavit on behalf of Abdul Hamid has been sworn only by his attorney Dhani Bux without giving any explanation about the age of Abdul lamed. This position makes the allotment in favour of Abdul Hamid very suspicious and hence the order of the Deputy Commissioner appears to be justified on this ground as well.
19. In regard to Petition No,102/78 I may add that the case of Imtiaz is rather worse than that of Ali Muhammad Rahu inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, on 16-1-1975 had cancelled the allotment of Abdul Hamid after notice to Abdul Harald and further held that the claimant could not have disposed off the land to Imtiaz. lmtiaz was represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah, on 16-1-1975, but he had never challenged that order of 16-1-1975, before the High Court in any writ petition while All Muhammad Rahn had challenged the same in Petition No,140/78 and, therefore, that order of Deputy Commissioner, dated 16-1-1975 had attained finality as against lmtiaz. Of course he had not taken any Naqabuli land on lease from the Government. But otherwise on facts the findings in respect of interpolation in record of rights are equally binding against him and are not open to challenge before me. Mr. Niazi A. Khaliq could not show any reason as to why transfer of land in his favour by Abdul Hamid should be treated differently than the transfers in favour of Ali Muhammad Rahu and Mst. Saleem Khatoon. The order of 27-7-1978 shows Imtiaz to have been impleaded as a respondent before the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, Imtiaz could have filed the petition. But even Imtiaz is a transferee from Abdul Hamid whose allotment is found to have been improperly made and even his personality is not above suspicion as he has failed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and even before me in this petition to explain as to how he was 26 years of age in 1973 and still can claim to be a direct claimant.
20. For the foregoing reasons these petitions are dismissed.