1. ' Petitioners through this Constitutional petition have assailed the judgment dated 30th of October, 1977 passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sialkot, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot whereby he cancelled the land of their predecessor-in-interest by exercising the powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
2. ' Brief facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that on the receipt of three Mukhbari applications filed on 15-2-1974 under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
3. Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as `Act') for the cancellation of land secured in the name of Nawaz Khan son of Kala at Khata No, 55 of RL-II Register and Jagdev son of Kala at Khata Nos.10 and 11 of RL-II Register at Mauza Rattian, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot against Claim Form No,1026 filed for the alleged land abandoned by them in Village Glawad, Tehsil Plawal, District Gurgaon, Punjab, India. It was the case of the informant that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest Faizyab Khan had secured these allotments in a calendestine manner through misrepresentation and fraud as the original right-holder Nawaz Khan and Jagdev did not even migrate from India. To substantiate this aspect it had come on record that the predecessor-in-interest earlier filed Claim Form No,1026 for the land abandoned in Village Ran Sika and another claim Form No,1027 for the land abandoned in Village Norangabad, Tehsil Palwal both of them were turned down as no land was available in his name. An objection was also filed on 5-9-1951, which too was rejected.
4. Subsequently, in a calendestine manner a duplicate claim Form No,1026 in the name of Nawaz Khan and Jagdev sons of Kala for the land abandoned in Village Glawad, Tehsil Palwal, District Gurgaon was filed and the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest succeeded in securing allotment in Mauza Rattian, Tehsil Narowal in the Khatas aforementioned.
5. ' Subsequent to the allotment through mutation he got the aforesaid land sanctioned in his favour on 14-4-1953 claiming himself son and the nephew of the aforestated allottees respectively. The parties produced their evidence before the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner. One Shamru from Glawad area appeared alongwith his passport and made a categorical statement that aforestated Nawaz Khan and Jagdev sons of Kala had never migrated to Pakistan. The two witnesses namely Shaukat Ali and Subhan produced by the petitioners' side are not trustworthy.
6. Aforestated Shaukat Ali P.W. Had also been shown as a collateral in an objection application earlier filed by Faizyab Khan son of Kanwal Khan. This witness also admitted that Nawaz Khan and Jagdev never came to Pakistan. As far as Subhan P.W. Is concerned he admitted that he attested the duplicate Claim Form No,1026 on the basis of which disputed land was secured by predecessorin- interest of the petitioners. He also admitted attestation of Claim Forms Nos.1026 and 1027 filed by Faizyab Khan son of Kanwal Khan. All these aspects demonstrate that these two witnesses had completely suppressed the facts. Learned counsel for the petitioners had brought nothing on record to controvert these findings of facts by the Tribunal below. On the contrary, it has also come on record that the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest earlier secured temporary allotment as Faizyab Khan son of Kanwal Khan in village Begowala and the disputed allotment had been secured in a different village of Rattian just to put screen on the illegal gain. The original Claim Form No,1026 was under the name of Faizyab Khan son of Kanwal Khan while the duplicate had been filed under the names of Nawaz Khan and Jegdev sons of Kala. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on the basis of evidence came to a definitive conclusion that the predecessor-in-interest Faizyab Khan through impersonation secured the allotment as such no exception can be taken to this factual controversy in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. ' The other argument of the learned counsel that they were entitled to purchase the land on the basis of their possession in accordance with the repealed Act is devoid of any force. The scope of sections 10 and 11 of the Act is very wide. This Act was amended to give benefit and to encourage the informants in bringing the bogus/fraudulent allotments to light. Section 14 (1-A) was substituted through Act XXXVI of 1974, which reads as under:- "(1-A) Where, at any time before or after the commencement of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 (LV of 1973), any person has furnished or furnishes information about any bogus or fraudulent allotment of land and the information has been or is proved to be correct and such land has been or is resumed by competent authority, upon the cancellation of the allotment of such land, the informant shall be entitled:--
(a) if he is a claimant, to allotment of the resumed land to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the same Province or, if the resumed land has already been allotted to some other person, to the allotment, to the said extent, of any other land of his choice available for allotment in the same Province; and
(b) in any other case, to a cash award of such amount as the Chief Settlement Commissioner may decide."
8. The reading of this section demonstrates that the informant had a statutory r., right to claim the benefit of the land cancelled on his information. Reliance is 13 placed upon Rehmat Ali v. Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1980 SC 214 where it was held as under:-- "14. However, the learned counsel submitted that the right of an informant to have the land which was the subject-matter of his Mukhbari was dependent upon the condition that "such land has been or is resumed by the competent authority upon cancellation of the allotment of such land", as indicated in section 14(1-A) itself. He argued that to enable an informant to have the land, first there should be cancellation of allotment from the name of the bogus or fraudulent allottee and thereafter it must then be resumed. 'Unless actual resumption takes place the land cannot be bestowed upon the Mukhbar, because, in the eventuality of its non-resumption it has according to the learned counsel instead to be given on sale to its actual occupant. The contention has no force for various reasons both on factual and legal planes. So far as the factual plane is concerned it has already been mentioned that the land stands duly resumed from the outgoing allottee Sarwar Abdullah who voluntarily surrendered it. As regards the legal plane it will be contradiction in terms to say that pending proceedings of an informant can continue and on his information land can be cancelled from the names of the bogus and fraudulent allottees, but the consequent reward to the informant will not be given, because saying so in our opinion will tantamount to saying that a suit can be continued but a decree therein in favour of a plaintiff shall not be passed or even if passed he will not be allowed to reap its fruit to execute it. This will destroy the very logic of allowing the pending proceedings to continue because if this is going to be the position and an informant cannot get the land for which he has lodged the information, then why should he lead evidence, engage counsel, produce or cross-examine witnesses and incur all the relevant expenses in money, labour, and time. In this context if this was to be the intention of the law then the Legislature would have rather laid down that such proceedings would abate forthwith. But as that was not done, the same result cannot be achieved by putting forward an argument of the kind which is being advanced before us. This will show that the effect of allowing the old law (as contained in section 14 (1-A) to continue for pending cases, as contemplated in sections 2(2) and 2(3) of Act XIV of 1975 is, to dispose of those cases under the repealed law, which in its own turn fully authorises the passing of a final order both for cancellation of allotment, resumption of land, and its consequent transfer to the informant. The said order will then be executed by the relevant Board of Revenue. To say therefore that continuation of pending proceedings will stop short at cancellation of allotment and will not go further to resumption and allotment of land does not fit in the relevant context."
9. ' Similarly, while interpreting section 3 of the repealed Act the Supreme Court in a case reported in PLD 1978 SC 266 "Shah Nawaz and others v. Member, Board of Revenue" has held under:- ' If all these provisions of law are read together it becomes quite clear that subsection (1) of section 3 will apply only to such land which becomes available as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of section 2, which principle if applied to the facts and the circumstances of the present case will mean that the land will become available after the proceedings regarding entitlement of the informants, if any, which were pending at the date of the repealed law were finalised. If as a result of those proceedings the land is directed to be given away to the informants concerned then that is not a land which has become available for being given to an applicant under the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 3 ibid...."
10. ' This being the situation, the intention of the Legislature was to cancel the allotments secured by fraud and misrepresentation and allow the informants to reap the benefit of consequential resumption. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim premium over illegal gains.
11. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.