1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Hussain, appellant herein through leave of the Court calls in question the judgment dated 31-3-1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, whereby the Writ Petition No, 205-R of 1977/BWP filed by Ghulam Hussain and others, respondents herein, against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 26-11-1977 was accepted and the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner impugned therein was set aside. The leave granting order is reproduced below:- "In proceedings initiated under sections 10 and 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, allotment made in respect of the claim of one Mehtab son of Kokla was cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, on the ground that the said claimant had never migrated to Pakistan. The allottee challenged the decision of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. A learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and declared the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The person who had laid information seeks leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court.
2. ' The learned Single Judge was of the view that the question whether the claim submitted on behalf of Mchtab son of Kokla was genuine or not could only be considered by the Claims Organization set up under the Registration of Claims Act and that it was not open to the Additional Settlement Commissioner to examine this question. In support of this petition it is contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was erroneous inasmuch as the claim of Mehtab Kokla related to agricultural land falling in the agreed area and the Claims Organization had nothing to do with it; consequently, the Additional Settlement Commissioner was competent to examine its genuineness.
3. ' The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted."
4. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one Mehtab son of Kokla Mew Rajput was allotted agricultural land vide Register RL-II S.No, 19 in Mauza Sukhail of T.Ehsil Ahmadpur East in District Bahawalpur on 15-1-1960 against his verified claim relating to his lands abandoned in Mauza Plan Khera in Tehsil Ramgarh of Alwar State in East Punjab. He alienated an area of 27 Kanals 10 Marlas in favour of Fazal Hussain, respondent No, 3 herein, vide Mutation No, 907 entered on 15-7-1966 and sanctioned on 11-8-1966 for a sum of Rs, 7,000. The remaining area measuring 162 Kanals was sold by him in favour of Fazal Hussain and Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 12, for a sum of Rs, 32,400 vide Mutation No, 944. The mutations were duly attested by the Revenue Officer after the vendor was properly identified by Ghulam Haider Lambardar. Fazal Hussain mortgaged his share with the Agricultural Development Bank as security for the loan obtained by him for the purchase of tractor. Some of the area was gifted by him to his sons. The mutations in question were duly incorporated in the subsequent record-of-rights. Muhammad Hussain appellant was also a claimant displaced person from District Amritsar and had a verified claim but had not been successful in getting allotment of land in lieu thereof. He submitted a Mukhbari application to the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 29-3-1974 alleging that Mehtab son of Kokla to whom the disputed land had been allotted was a Lambardar of Village Plan Khera, Tehsil Ramgarh and that he never migrated to Pakistan and that all the proceedings regarding the allotment of land in his name were obtained through fraud by the respondents. This application was inquired into by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and, on the appraisal of the evidence produced for and against the allegations, he accepted the same and by setting aside the allotment order in favour of Mehtab son of Kokla, ordered the allotment of the land in favour of Muhammad Hussain appellant. The Constitutional Petition No, 205-R of 1977/BWP was filed by Ghulam Hussain respondent and others, the transferees from Mehtab son of Kokla which was allowed through the impugned order and the allotment in favour of Mehtab restored and the alienation made by him held valid. Hence the instant appeal through leave of the Court.
5. ' We have heard Mr. A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, for the appellant; Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Bhatti, Advocate, for the respondents; and have perused the record of the case.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellant argued with vehemence that the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10/11 of the Land Settlement Act, had the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the allotment had been secured through fraudulent means or not and having given a finding on the proper appraisal of the evidence produced before him in the affirmative, the High Court in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction could not enter into the factual controversy between the parties; that the alleged alienation in favour of the respondents were not properly established and mutations attested were also fake and forged; that the claim on the basis of which the allotment was made in the name of Mehtab was processed by a person as an impostor for Mehtab and not by the real owner who was still an Indian national; and that the judgment of this Court in case Muhammad Yaqoob v. Nazar Khan (1983 SCM R 1252) relied upon by the learned Single Judge was distinguishable as the claim in question pertain, to agreed area. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant had failed to prove that Mehtab son of Kokla had not migrated to Pakistan and that any fraud had been practised in the verification of the claim submitted in his name. He referred to the relevant law providing for verification of claim from agreed and non- agreed areas and asserted that the judgment relied upon by the High Court was applicable to the reacts of the case and was rightly relied upon in accepting the writ petition.
7. ' We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed rather admitted that Mehtab son of Kokla Mew Rajput was owner of land in Village Plan Khera and that a claim in his name was filed before the Claims Commissioner, who, after due verification, found it correct and on the basis thereof allotment of land was made in Village Sukhail, District Bahawalpur in the year 1960. The allottee transferred the land in favour of the respondents in the years 1966 and 1968 through attestation of regular mutations, some of which was encumbered by the transferees for obtaining loans from the Agricultural Development Bank. The Mukhbari application was filed in 1974. Two witnesses, namely, Chawey Khan and Kaley Khan were produced by the appellant who deposed that Mehtab son of Kokla was the resident of Village Plan Khera who had not migrated to Pakistan and the village was attacked and inhabitants had to flee therefrom. Both of them, however, admitted that they never visited their village after their migration to Pakistan and, consequently, their assertion that the said Mehtab son of Kokla is still residing in India or that after his abandoning the village he did not migrate to Pakistan, cannot be accepted as gospel truth. On the other hand, witnesses were produced who rebutted the version of the aforementioned witnesses and stated that the said Mehtab had migrated to Pakistan and that his claim and allotment in lieu thereof was genuine. In the circumstances, the allegations of fraud had not been successfully established. Additionally, the allottee had divested himself of the land by transferring the same in favour of the respondents in lieu of valuable consideration who claim to be bona fide purchaser in good faith entitled to protection under the law. The filing of the claim, verification thereof, the allotment of land, in satisfaction thereof took place much before the attestation of the sale mutations in favour of the respondents and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondents/transferees at any stage of the above proceedings committed or actively assisted in the perpetration of the alleged fraud.
8. ' As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the disputed claim pertain to the agreed area and that the cited judgment has no application to the facts of the instant case, suffice it to say, that West Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1949 (Act V of 1949) provided for registration of claims in respect of land abandoned by refugees in territories comprising the Provinces of East Punjab, and Delhi, the East Punjab States, and the States of Alwar, Bharatpur and Bikaner, whereas Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (Act III of 1956) pertain to property left in India, in areas occupied by India and that the provisions of both the statutes are, more or less, identical inasmuch as, in both of them ' registration of the claims, their verifications, appointment of Claims Commissioners, their jurisdiction, appeal and revision and their respective powers are, more or less, the same with the only difference that the former caters for the claims in respect of land abandoned in specified areas while the latter is regarding the lands left in the whole of India. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has exhaustively dealt with the matter whether the Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to inquire into the fraud allegedly practised upon the Claims Commissioner and relying upon the cited judgment has rightly held that their jurisdiction under section 10/11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, does not pertain to the fraud committed on the Claims Commissioner. We have gone through the cited judgment and find it on all fours with the facts of the present case.
9. ' The learned counsel for the respondents cited the judgment of this Court in case Karim Khan v.
10. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) (1993 SCM R 2344) in which a similar question regarding fraud practised upon the Settlement Officer in the allotment of land through a Mukhbari application was involved and the allottee had already transferred the land in favour of different persons. The said judgment to some extent support the contention of the respondents, inasmuch as, in the instant case also the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner could not lead to the only conclusion that the claimant had not migrated to Pakistan or that forged claims were filed by impostor and allotment obtained through practising fraud on the Settlement Commissioner, moreso when in between the filing of the claim and the alienation of the land by the impostor allottee long time had elapsed.
11. ' Finding no legal error in the impugned judgment, the instant appeal is dismissed.