IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question order dated 17.1.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, relating to cancellation of allotment of the disputed land made in favour of Muhammad Siddiq from whom the petitioner herein claims to have purchased the same.
It is not known to the petitioner as to when the allotment was made in favour of Muhammad Siddiq nor a certified/uncertified copy of the allotment order has been placed on record.
2. The dispute regarding this allotment earlier arose between the petitioner and Mst. Shakeela Begum (not party to the writ petition). The matter was contested by the parties upto the Supreme Court vide C.A.No.108/87 on the following grounds:-
(I) That she had purchased the land in question from Nawab Hasan Yar Jang, respondent No.4 after the same had been allotted in this name, for consideration.
(ii) That Abdul Ghani respondent No.1 did not implead the petitioner as a party in the writ petition resulting in the impugned judgment dated 21.4.1986.
(iii)That even otherwise she remained unaware of these proceedings and came to know about the impugned order on 20.6.86 when Abdul Ghani respondent No.1 came to the village and claimed to have won the case.
(iv)That the writ petition suffered from gross laches for which no satisfactory explanation was submitted.
(v) That earlier the heirs of Muhammad Siddique had filed writ petition No.413/77 but they withdrew the same on 18.9.1978. These submissions were not considered tenable and the writ petition was accepted.
(vi) That the decision of the earlier Settlement Revision could not per se be made a ground to accept the writ petition inasmuch as at that time the circumstance that Muhammad Siddique did not have any claim pending satisfaction, was not brought to the notice of the learned High Court Judges.
(vii)That Muhammad Siddique being a non-claimant, the very allotment in his favour was void ab initio and the decision of the Settlement Revision Petition could not be treated as a bar to Mukhbari application.
(viii) That the allotment in the name of Muhammad Siddique was liable to be cancelled inasmuch as a valid Mukhbari application had been presented before and entertained by a competent authority before the repeal of the evacuee laws.
(ix) That withdrawal of the earlier writ petition by the legal heirs of Muhammad Siddique would operate as a res judicata qua the present petition out of which the impugned order has arisen.
(x) That the petitioner being a necessary party, had not been impleaded intentionally by Abdul Ghani and on this ground also the impugned judgment merits to be set aside.
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of Mst. Shakila Begum by order dated 10.2.1987 and remanded the case to the Notified Officer with the following observations:- "On going through the record, we find that notice was issued to respondent No.1 on 15.7.86 and was repeated vide orders of this Court dated 20.12.86 and 10.1.87. Respondent along with his counsel present. Heard. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
The petition is converted into appeal. The petitioner had been made a party to the proceedings in the writ petition as she was vitally interested in the subject matter of the petition. As the question of merit raised in the High Court was not raised before the Settlement Authority, the writ petition, therefore, should not have been allowed in the discretionary jurisdiction. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and remand the case to the notified officer for re-hearing after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs".
On remand, the Notified Officer after hearing the petitioner and Mst. Shakila Begum by order dated 17.1.1991 inter alia held as follows:- It has been admitted by the learned counsel for Mst. Shakila Begum who has not stepped into the shoes of the informer that Muhammad Siddique at the time of filing mukhbari petition was not alive. The silence of the competent authority during the period from 15.2.1974 to 6.11.1975 is very meaningful because the period given for filing of such mukhbari petition was 1st July, 1974. This belated action on the part of the then Addl. Settlement Commissioner cast doubt whether this mukhbari petition was filed in time or not. Even if this fact is ignored, it is admitted that the mukhbari petition was filed against a dead person and therefore no proceeding can be initiated or can take place against a dead person and on this very defect the mukhbari application filed by Nawab Hasan Yar Jang and other is not maintainable against Muhammad Siddique. For the reasons given above I am not inclined to give any benefit to Hasan Yar Jang or his successors in filing of the said mukhbari petition".
3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid observation, the allotment made in favour of Muhammad Siddique was cancelled and the same was restored to the Provincial Government on the ground that the petitioner has committed fraud in getting the allotment on the basis of forged document and he is trying to reap the benefit of fraud by posing him to be bona-fide purchaser of the land.
Refer paragraph 8 of the impugned order which reads thus:- "Coming to the respondents I would like to observe that the land was allotted to Muhammad Siddique the predecessor-in-interest of Abdul Ghani on the basis of Claim Form No.3672 in lieu of the land left behind by him in India in Village Bhawani Garhi, Teh Patiala. This land was allotted on Khata No.261 of R.L.II village Durgapur. While dealing with the mukhbari application my learned predecessor obtained a report from the Central Record Office through a robkar No.1412 dated 17.11.76. The Central Record Office reported vide letter dated 29.11.1976 that no area exist in the register of right-holder in the name of Muhammad Siddique son of Allah Bakhsh in village Behmana, Hadbast No.88, Teh Patiala State and that no area was ever verified against Claim Form No.3672 in his name. Abdul Ghani the present respondent who is contesting the case since the hearing of the mukhbari petition has not produced any report contrary to this before this court. He has neither requested for obtaining a fresh report if the previous one was doubtful. The allotment which was thus made to Muhammad Siddique on Khata No.261 in village Durgapur was without any entitlement. From the perusal of the R.L.II khata No.261, it transpires that Abdul Ghani respondent was instrumental in getting this allotment, because he has signed the R.L.II khata No.261. He is the real person who committed fraud with the settlement authorities by getting allotment on the basis of forged document. He later on got this land transferred in his name as vendee. He is thus main person who is the author of the forged document and now trying to reap benefit of his fraud by posing him a genuine and bonafide purchaser of the land. If he is given this benefit and the allotment is kept intact, it will amount that the fraud and forgery is not harmful but it pays dividend. The allotment on Khata No.261 is thus without entitlement, procured through fraud and forgery by forging an entitlement in favour of Muhammad Siddique allottee in which Abdul Ghani present respondent has played a pivotal role. I, therefore, by exercising suo-moto power, cancel the said allotment and restore the land to the Provincial Government. A copy of this order be sent to the District Collector, Gujranwala for immediate necessary action".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings recorded by the Notified Officer in para 8 of the impugned judgment are based on the record submitted by the Central Record Office in the year 1976, which were held to be inoperative by this court in writ petition N0.I8O-R of 1979, wherein it was held that claim No.780 in village Swana was rightly verified in favour of Muhammad Siddique and the report of the Central Record Office for the year 1976 regarding claim No.3672 was not relied upon. The contention is devoid of any force. The order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.l80/R-79 has since been quashed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.108 of 1987 and the case was remanded, the previous judgment of this court does not help the petitioner.
5. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah further argued that the allotment made in favour of Muhammad Siddique was held to be valid in Settlement Revision No.43/66 decided on 19.3.1969 and, therefore, the same attained finality and was not liable to be re-opened by the Notified Officer either directly or indirectly. The plea is not sustainable. The Notified Officer was competent to examine the whole case afresh in pursuance of the remand order of the Supreme Court.
6. Be that as it may, Mst. Shakeela Begum was not party to the Settlement Revision No.43 of 1966 and therefore, the said judgment was not operative against her. Furthermore, Mst. Shakeela Begum has not been impleaded party in these proceedings. Viewed from this angle as well, the writ petition is defective. Additionally, a finding of fact has been recorded against the petitioner, which is not liable to be challenged in these proceedings. The Notified Officer held on the basis of the material placed before him and after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties that the petitioner committed fraud and forgeries in the record. It is, therefore, difficult ^to sustain the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Department, whose record was allegedly tampered with was not debarred from holding an inquiry and taking appropriate decision in regard thereto. The same view was taken in an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar-nl-Haq and others v. Muhammad Nasir and d: other (Civil Appeal No. Lll of 1989, decided on 10.6.1991) which I respectfully follow.
In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.