SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.-Boota bad verified claim of 994 Units and he in lieu thereof was confirmed on his Q. P. R. No. 32496/1640 land in village Dogranwali, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot.
Boota was confirmed subsequently by an order dated the 18th of October 1963, land measuring 332 kanals 4 marlas to village Tatlal Aali, Tehsil and District Gujranwala against his claim form No. 5261.
On a reference made by the Director of Enforcement the allotment was cancelled by Mr. Mahmood Sadiq. Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 11th of October 1971. This is a revision petition against the said order.
2. We on the 26th October 1971, passed the following order:- "The petitioners are the transferees of the land in dispute from Boota in whose favour the land was confirmed on the 18th of October 1963. They purchased it in March 1965 in con--sideration of a sung of Rs. 11,000.00). The allotment of Boota has been cancelled on the ground that it had been fraudulently obtained we do not find in the impugned judgment any facts to show as to who committed the fraud, on whom and when, and also whether any of the Government official was also a party to the fraud. The only persons who now suffer are the petitioners who claim to be the bona fide purchasers for value and no responsibility is fixed on any other person in the impugned order which may expose them to any criminal action, or an action by the petitioners for the refund of the amount.
2. Mr. Maqbool Illahi Malik, the Legal Advisor of the Department, has been apprised of the position and asked to obtain instructions from respondent No. 2."
Mr. Maqbool Illahi Malik appeared before us on the 26th of October 1971 and sought an adjournment to take the instructions and he stated before us that the Chief Settlement Commissioner is in agreement with our observations that in cases arising under section 10 it is not sufficient to cancel the allotment but an inquiry should also be held to prove the facts constituting the fraud and also as to the persons who were responsible in the commission of the fraudulent act.
He further stated that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was of the opinion that a fraud could not be ordinarily committed unless the Field Staff of the Settlement Department was ire collusion with such persons. He admitted that there should be a proper inquiry in all such matters and that attempt should be made to find out also the complicity of the members of the department.
3. It is a matter of common knowledge that many a innocent persons have been the victim of the fraudulent allot--ments and their confirmation. They purchased the property on the basis of the entries in R. L.
2. It is presumed to law that all official acts are duly done. If therefore, a person is shown in R. L. 2 maintained by the department it carries with it a presumption that the allotment had been made to him duly and properly. In such cases it is just and proper that not only that it should be found out that a subsequent allotment was made on a claim which had already been satisfied or that some body had obtained it fraudulently but that it should also be found as to how that fraud was committed and whether any of the officer or official of the department was a party to the fraudulent transaction. In such a case if a bona fide purchaser is to suffer on account of such entries and is to lose the property for which he has paid a valuable consider--ation, there is no reason why the officials of the department without whose connivance the fraud would not have been committed should not be hold responsible and be dealt with. Cheating is a cognizable offence and if a transaction is cancelled under section 10 of the Land Settlement Act, there is no reason why the miscreants should not be brought to book under the law of the land. In this view of the matter we find that the impugned order suffers from a patent defect and merits to be set aside.
4. The petition is accepted and the case is remanded with the direction that the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegate may constitute an inquiry into the matter and then pass the necessary order in accordance with the facts and law.