' Hakim Din son of Alla-ud-Din, Gujar, resident of Kot Shera, Tehsil and District Gujranwala filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act 1958 in which he alleged that the allotment obtained by Bhooru was bogus and fraudulent. In this application, Hakim bin cited three persons as respondents i.e, Siraj Din, Bhooru and Abdur Rashid. Bhooru appeared before Settlement Commissioner and stated that Siraj Din was his uncle. He died in India, and that he had filed claim for land abandoned by his uncle in India.
' Abdur Rashid respondent No,3 did not appear before the Settlement Commissioner. Proclamation was issued in the newspaper dated 30-9-1976, yet, he did not turn up. Thereafter, he was proceeded ex parte. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) who was seized of the matter by his order dated 3-2-1977 held that Siraj Din did not come over to Pakistan and the allotment obtained by respondent No,3 was due to fraud and misrepresentation. He, therefore, exercising the power of Chief Settlement Commissioner, cancelled the allotment and ordered the same to be resumed and allotted to Hakim Din as informer.
' Sardar Abdur Rashid and Zulfigar Ahmad Khan have challenged the said order by means of this petition.
2. Learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners raised two contentions. First that the petitioners were condemned unheard. They were necessary and proper party to the proceedings.
Secondly, the information was laid against a dead person. Proceedings before the Settlement Authorities were as such coram non judice.
3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. They are, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
4. I have considered the submissions and gone through the impugned order as well as the comments submitted by the Department. The very allotment obtained by Abdur Rashid respondent No,3 was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. It is an admitted principle of law that no one can pass a better title than what he possesses. The Additional Settlement Commissioner held a detailed factual enquiry and then came to the conclusion that the entire transaction was fraudulent.
5. The petitioners should have been careful in watching their interest. They did not do so. The mere fact that a formal notice was not issued to them would not make material difference because even if at this stage I am to remit the case, the result will be the same.
' The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.