The petitioners claim to be purchasers of various parcels of land situate in Chak No. 279/RB, District Faisalabad. It appears that the Government intended to exchange evacuee land situated in this Chak with the State land for its inclusion within Municipal limits of Faisalabad for extension of the town. The validity of the exchange was challenged by Noor Muhammad, predecessor of the petitioners, by filing W.P. N. 987/66 which was allowed on 10th June, 1970 on the basis of statement made by the Assistant Advocate --General to the effect that if the petitioners' claims were still pending in- the estate on the date the writ petition was instituted and if he was still in possession of the land, the same shall be transferred to him whether or not it forms part of the compensation.
The land in question was subsequently allotted to Noor Muhammad, Later on, it came to the notice of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the transfer had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation as Noor Muhammad was neither allottee of the land nor had he any claim pending in the estate. It was also found that whereabouts of Noor Muhammad were not known and some other person had impersonated him while obtaining the allotment. This order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was challenged in two Writ Petitions bearing No.295/R-77 and 567-R/77 which were accepted and case was remanded for decision afresh after hearing the petitioner.
2. In the post-remand proceedings, the transfer in favour of predecessor of the petitioner was again found to be fraudulent and was consequently cancelled. While coming to this conclusion, it was noted that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.90-R/73 on 18th of May, 1976, had held that the persons who had obtained allotment were imposters. This is vide order dated 29-10-1985 of the Notified Officer, which has been assailed in this Constitutional petition.
3. During the pendency ~of this petition, the petitioners were directed to approach Board of Revenue on 15-2-1986 for consideration of the matter. In pursuance of this order, the matter was examined by the Board of Revenue which decided that so far as those petitioners, who have raised construction over the land in their occupation are concerned, they will be sold the land at the price prevalent in the year 1985, i.e. when this writ petition was filed. As regards the vacant plots, it was, however, directed that these plots will be put to auction.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that all the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value of the land from the transferee and they are entitled to retain the same. It is not disputed that transfer in favour of Noor Muhammad was found to be fraudulent. Not only that it was further found by the Notified Officer that Noor Muhammad, the real claimant, A was not traceable and some other person had obtained allotment by impersonating him. As the vendor of the petitioners had no right in the land, he could not pass any title to the petitioners and they have no consequently legal right to retain the land (See Gul Muhammad and others v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCM R 491) and Nianzoor Hussain v: Fazal Hussain and others (1984 SCM R 1027).
5. However, as the Board of Revenue has allowed some of the petitioners to purchase the plots over which they have raised construction on the payment of market price present in the year 1975, other petitioners may also approach the Board of Revenue a for reconsideration of the matter, on the basis of that, as they have remainin possession of the land for a large number of years and should not be uprooted.
With the above observation this petition is disposed of.